A man recently turned to yahoo answers for help with his question “My wife of 5 years grabbed me.?”

A few night ago my wife and I got into an argument. We both had had a few drinks at home with some friends for her birthday. She was mad at me and we went to our bedroom to talk about it. I shut the door behind us and was standing in front of it. She was very mad and hit a cup of water across the bedroom. And said she was leaving. I told her there’s no reason to leave and that we should jut talk and move on with our night. She walked over to me and grabbed my wrists and threw me into the bed. And then left the room. I have bruises on my arms and side. She has never touched me in the 6 years we have been together. But a week ago she got in my face for the first time. So it seems to me that it’s getting worse. Should I take these as red flags? If so what should I do. Also we have three kids together. I don’t want this to effect them.

Is she abusive for pushing him aside when he tried to hold her captive? Given her (mostly) non abusive track record, should he give her another chance to learn the proper way to be held captive so she doesn’t abuse him again? Or should he divorce her, take the kids, and make her pay child support? What if the situation was actually the other way around?

In another recent question on answers, a wife picked up a searing hot pan during a heated argument and hit her husband with it. The husband struck back in self defense, and she ran away crying. The husband was distraught, and wanted to know how to explain to his wife that he was only acting in self defense. One of the answerers advised the husband accordingly (emphasis mine):

I suggest you call the UK Women’s Aid domestic abuse hot line at 0800 2000 247. The counselor there can help explain to you why you did what you did, what your wife is feeling right now, and how to prevent it from happening again. They are non judgmental and will be glad that as an abuser, you chose to call and get information on how to stop abusing your wife. Then tell your wife that you called, and give her the number so that she can call too. Then you both set up an appointment with a marriage counselor to see together, and you get a personal counselor just for you who specializes in anger management.

My mother was a violent nutcase (against me, my sister, my dad, and anyone else within arm’s reach), and as such I have zero tolerance for this sort of crap, from men or women. If someone is unable to control themselves, I remove them from my presence immediately and never waste any of my precious time on them again.

I had one girl (hot latina) once, who threw something because she got angry. She didn’t even throw the object at me, but that was the last I saw or spoke to her. I don’t have time for childish people.

I am thankful every day not to be married, and to live alone. Both men and women who do this stuff should be considered unfit for marriage or any sort of partnership, and in modern North America, both men and women do it quite often (in my experience, the ratio is about 50/50). If I were one of these people in these narratives, I honestly don’t know what I’d do.

There is a double standard surrounding “domestic violence”. Dalrock, my expounding on this is not intended as advocating violence, but instead as relating facts about domestic violence.

Feminists, law professors, academics and other busybodies insist that there is no such thing as wife on husband spousal abuse. Men are presumed to be the abusers because they have superior physical size and strength. But it’s been my observation that women are far more verbally abusive than men are, and are far more effective at it than men are. I suspect this provokes some physical abuse from husband on wife at times.

Second, the example of abuse you gave that appeared on yahoo answers in which the wife falsely imprisoned the husband — the abuse isn’t apparent. What’s happening there is that the wife blocked the door and prevented her husband’s freedom of movement. The wife is using her smaller size and lesser strength. She knows she is no physical match for her husband. She is intimidating her husband by essentially telling him: “I can keep you here if I want. You can’t put your hands on me or move me out of the way because that’s domestic violence. It’s me, the law, the cops, the lawyers, the judges and the courts, all of us, against you. You’re alone in this. You can’t fight me. You so much as touch me, I’ll call the cops, tell them “I feel unsafe”, and we will drop the entire justice system on your head like an anvil on Wile. E. Coyote.”

There’s definitely a double standard when it comes to DV. And while some might argue that the wife’s physical size means she can’t inflict as much damage or pain as a man can (although the above recipient of the searing hot pan likely begs to differ!), many of these same voices argue that emotional abuse and mental intimidation classifies as DV–which is obviously independent of physical size. So, which is it? A man can’t win either way.

Even after it’s occurred and when it comes to rehabilitation, a man is judged a pussy if he reports the DV while a wife is judged empowered if she does. More double standard.

I good friend of mine recently completed a divorce. The final straw was his wife giving him a black eye, a fat lip, and scratches all over his arm and his back. He reported her and, I have to say, the legal process went as it should: she pleaded guilty due to the overwhelming evidence and has had to take anger management classes as part of her probation, etc. But the saddest, most unexpected thing (for me) was to see the reaction of other wives, some of the female “friends” we know in common. “Who hasn’t hit their husband from time-to-time?”, was the answer from some of these women. “What’s the big deal?” “It’s not like he can’t take it.” It was an alarming chorus from the feminine you-go-girl crowd. Amazing. Truly amazing.

It depends on if he was physically holding her captive. If someone has a hold of me and I don’t want to be there, I ask them to let me go. If they refuse, they are the abuser. But if she was the one who initiated the physical aggression, then she is the abuser.

Physical violence is always abuser. It doesn’t matter if it’s a man hitting a woman or a woman hitting a man. Yes, women are physically weaker (with exceptions) which makes them more vulnerable and defenseless again men, but women can abuse men too, putting them into positions that aren’t easy to get out of.

uh, no, not if she’s throwing hot frying pans around trying to injure me. If she’s doing that, she deserves the black eye in self defense.

Somehow, “Don’t hit your wife,” which was perhaps needed four decades ago turned into “Never defend yourself, accept all abuse from your wife at all times.” To the point now where when I talk to young girls fresh out of college, they all just assume that even self-defense from a man is unacceptable violence.

It’s ridiculous. So many women seem to forget that there’s actually more variation in size and strength BETWEEN MEN than between men and women. In a mans world, we don’t go around randomly punching, kicking, shoving men who are twice our size and could easily hurt us. We don’t do this, we would never do this. We don’t do this because ITS STUPID. The bigger guy obviously has a right to self defense and because he’s larger, he can do more damage to us than we do to him. That’s just a natural physical reality. So now women’s rights groups have created this completely alternate reality where even when physical size/strength isn’t possessed by a man, he is unable to defend himself from an abusive wife… just ridiculous.

I’ve told a lot of women who ask the question, “Would you ever hit a woman?”, a response something like, “If she hits me first, I would hit her back.” Invariably they’re all somewhat taken aback and consider me crazy. This is true of all women save those who have actually trained in martial arts. The ladies who know how to fight have a clear understanding of the natural order.

@Jeremy: I’m 52 and studied TKD for five years, then moved on to aikido. I watched a female 2nd-dan in aikido who was about 130 lbs, 30 years old, from Lebanon, NH, take on 3 guys simultaneously, all of them bigger than her and one of them big enough to make me be very nice to him. In 4 minutes she went totally Steven Segal on them and they knew what flight was all about.

Anyone who says a man is destined to win a fight with a woman because of size is a pussy boy who has a macho inferiority complex. I’ve seen Bill “Superfoot” Wallace fight, and trained with the captain of the US Olympic TKD team back in the 1980s. But I have NEVER seen something that made by eyes bug out as when a 130-pound woman WASTED three guys with the nonchelance of a kitten batting a roll of yarn.

A woman opens up on me, I’m going to either hurt her badly or I’m running.

I am intrigued by the way that Ashley Pariseau begins her first paragraph in the third person singular, slips into the first person singular and then back into the third person singular to complete the paragraph.

Zorro
a woman is capable of hurting another human being and I feel no need to treat women as special other than to avoid having to fight the US government. Also zorro those guys most likely thought they were just going to tke care of the “little lady” they white knighted there own asses kicked.

I’m not sure if you typed “is always abuser” when you meant “is always abuse” Ahley, but no – physical violence is not always abuse. That abrogates the natural right to self-defense that every creature has. Once you are physically attacked, even if ineffectually at first, there’s no guarantee the “weaker” attacker won’t pull a knife, or get lucky with the ashtray/incense tray/whatever.

For that matter, the unwillingness of many women to treat yelling, shaming, etc. as abuse is horrifying. They apparently don’t realize that not only IS it violence, but in many cases legally qualifies as “Assault.” In the wrong part of town, to the wrong person, it will end up with you getting your ass handed to you, if you survive the experience.

I’m a big enough guy that I’ve never had to hit anyone seriously, man or woman. The few times that another guy got mad enough to try to hurt me (in school, mostly), I was able to just wrap him up and subdue him. So I used to belong to the “a man should never hit a woman unless she’s actually coming at him with a knife or gun” school, because I figured a man should never need to.

Being accused of abuse changed that somewhat, even though it was “only” alleged emotional abuse. Now I know how scary that can be: knowing that if she chooses to go all the way with it, she can damage your reputation, cost you a bundle, possibly even turn family and friends against you, just with an accusation. So it would have to be terrifying to be a guy who is being threatened with that and getting beaten up besides.

If the worst she can do is bruise him a little, I’d be tempted to call this incident a draw: he was trying to control her (if that’s what standing in front of the door was about) and she fought back to get away. But I’d second the recommendation that he document it. Not because he should press charges over it necessarily, but so he has some counter evidence to use in case she accuses him of abuse at some point.

He should also make it very clear to her that violence from her isn’t acceptable, but I’m not sure how a guy does that without seeming like a pussy. Any suggestions?

All of these statements regarding the “poor weaker females” end up begging the question, why the hell are women in combat scenarios then? How on earth does the logic follow?

Also let it be said that a woman who uses physical violence against a man deserves what she gets in return. Obviously a slap doesn’t deserve a punch so the response should be measured but if she is flailing about with fists I see no reason why you shouldn’t take her into a restraining hold that puts enough pressure to make her realize you mean business and this isn’t going to continue. She continues, well it’s time to let her childish outburst be met with divorce papers if she wants it that way. Because if she isn’t able to control herself like an adult then she shouldn’t be married.

I watched a female 2nd-dan in aikido who was about 130 lbs, 30 years old, from Lebanon, NH, take on 3 guys simultaneously, all of them bigger than her and one of them big enough to make me be very nice to him.

That’s a sport with firm rules…no frying pans allowed. Real violence is very different and you usually don’t have the advantage of knowing its coming, or facing someone who is both unskilled and following established rules.

I was in a relationship where the woman hit me in the head while i was sleeping … and, in another instance, threw D-cell batteries as hard as possible, bruising me. If course, the relationship ended. I have never had the impulse to assault a woman; I am a peaceful person; this woman was simply batshit violent. . Women can most certainly initiate physical violence.

Take Salt with Angelina Jolie. Angie a woman that usually has her ribcage showing she is so skinny and here she is kicking all sorts of ass. Also, it’s not a matter of being super skilled in martial arts while the other guys are chumps. She is fighting 225 lb 6’0 male super commandos as well.

The only one that was plausible was Haywire with Gina Carrino, a woman that real life really could beat down most men being an MMA champion. But even then, in the movie she was fighting other super trained male agents and winning. Size and strength makes a huge difference in combat sports. The worst UFC heavyweight would take Lightweight champ Benson Henderson and toss him around like a slinky.

The point is, self defense isn’t domestic violence. Is the modern Western woman’s sense of entitlement so inflated that she believes that she can commit a violent act with no repercussions? Women lashing out violently with greater frequency and amplitude deals with women attempting to access masculine power, essentially imitating the small scrappy guy who fights more violently, and with a hotter temper in order to compensate for being physically weaker.

Most traditional martial arts are simply useless in real world application. TKD is beyond useless, as is most aikido.

Even MMA has extreme limitations in real life and that is the most pratical of martial arts because you actually have to win a hardcore fight with it against genetic freaks so only the stuff that works stays in.

The reality is that if you practice martial arts for real world self defense, then you might be disappointed with the results. You see in world, we have these things called weapons and also also the floor is usually a hard substance that isn’t made from skulls falling against it. If you use the best martial art for one on one fighting, wrestling and BJJ, you could very well end up in the hospital and morgue. It just takes one guy that is wrapped up your guard to decide he wants to stick his knife into your throat or his friends that think that you being on top of Bill isn’t very nice to make your evening unpleasant.

The best hand to hand combat for the streets is probably boxing. Simply so you can throw some punches to connect and not being a sitting duck on the ground. It also allows you throw and run away. The absolute gold standard in self defense, to run away really really fast.

Hand to hand combat is really just a male ritual for displaying pecking order or a sport. The invention of steel and gunpowder has made it basically obsolete in terms of actually winning real conflict altought it’s not a bad thing to know simply because especially in your youth it gives you an aura that you won’t be at the losing end of the domiance ritual that impacts your pysche.

The statistics show that spousal abuse is 50/50. As an aside, I once asked my mother (who worked in the ER at night) how many rape accusations were false from her 25 years at work. She told me 90% of them. Since that, I have never assumed the man is at fault in any confrontation with a woman.

MackPUA, your comment assumes the idea that a black eye is just a black eye. It’s not. When a partner, someone who is supposed to be loving, hits another, there are emotional scars that often never fade. To ask which type of abuse is worse is something I don’t think is important. It’s not a competition.

Physical violence between men and women existed for nearly all of human history. I’ve seen plenty of women who are trying to elicit the reaction in their men. They are probably genetically programmed to see if the man is aggressive enough to hit them. It is even a turn on for some women. Whether this makes it right or wrong I don’t know, but there is certainly a non-zero number of women who have a strong desire to do whatever it takes to get hit. I think I was with one of these girls once and I found it very uncomfortable and dumped her.

I see a strange two-fold view on women. On one hand, they are encouraged to prove their physical equality with men through things like front-line military service, martial arts, and even ultimate fighting. Yet, when it comes to domestic violence, they are viewed as fragile victims and the laws and courts act accordingly. I cannot think of a situation more corrosive to the well-being of men.

I remember an episode of NCIS that featured a female Marine who trained young male Marines in hand-to-hand combat, who earned medals for heroic service in Afghanistan, and was respected by her commanding office and men serving under her. Yet, she was unable to stop her husband from physically assaulting her. At the end of the episode she said that she was not a victim, but a “survivor.” It completely shocked me that they portrayed a female character in such a schizophrenic way, making her out to be an unstoppable force of nature in one moment (equal to men) and then a sympathetic sufferer of violent circumstances in which she was powerless (victim of men).

What ia there to be emotional abouf? It’s just a continuation of the cultural norm, it’s wrong to be a man. It the mark of sin to be a man, i’m waiting for the culture to advocate self flagilation for the dark sin of being born male.

Its sinply one more data point, dont marry. And if possible avoid a live in relationahip. The whole of civilization is stacked against you, and will be till western civ collapses in on itself.

Given the climate we live in here in the west I would recommend both men leave there homes if at all possible. I would further recommend they hire attorneys to see what legal actions can be taken to protect themselves and their children, including divorce, restraining orders and custody of children. I would not allow myself to remain in a situation where I could be abused/incarcerated due to a false DV complaint or an exaggeration of actions taken in self-defense. Both women (given the state of things) were physically AND emotionally abusive given the likely outcome should authorities get involved.

This is nothing to be messed around with. If the feminist literature is anywhere near legit than future abuse is likely to happen, what would make a controlling abuser stop? Surely not the authorities that the woman is trying to make a party to the abuse.

Grabbing someone by the wrists hard enough to leave a bruise is an aggressive vs a defensive act. She was the abuser. A woman who feels trapped or threatened is going to back away, not advance and become violent. (Note the exception to this would be when protecting a child).

I am intrigued by the way that Ashley Pariseau begins her first paragraph in the third person singular, slips into the first person singular and then back into the third person singular to complete the paragraph.

Nice catch.

This greatly increases the chances that she herself has abused a man, or otherwise has called the cops on a man who did nothing wrong, and leveled a false accusation against him.

She is now here to be vague and say ‘abusers come in both genders’.

I would wager that she has done something that would be considered quite wrong, in any other combination other than a woman doing it to a man.

I am intrigued by the way that Ashley Pariseau begins her first paragraph in the third person singular, slips into the first person singular and then back into the third person singular to complete the paragraph.

Go check out her website. She actually is a ‘wannabe writer’.

Not to be harsh to her, but if her grammar is that bad, how can she aspire to a writing career? I mean, Dalrock has his normal career and blogging is just his hobby, yet his writing is so incomparably better than Ashley’s that I cannot help but bring up the fact that society lets women build a ‘career’ out of something they don’t even do as well as a man with the same subject as a mere hobby.

That is even before we address the fact that her website is big on identifying women as victims and men as abusers.

I knew a man once, only by email and newsgroup postings. I remember he was a dedicated father, and his wife used that dedication to her advantage. I remember what his wife did to him, over and over again, until he could no longer remain in that home. I remember the anguish he expressed as a father at that separation.

And I remember exactly where I was the day I read of his death on the newsgroup soc.men.

@Zorro,“@Everyone who thinks they have a brain:
I was there. You weren’t. Go suck an eggplant.
It utterly blows me away how many men insist that aikido is a joke. I was there. You weren’t.”

When Akido proves itself in the ring against the other martial arts, I’ll buy it. Otherwise, I’m throwing my bullshit flag too. I’ve done Boxing, Muay Thai and had one BJJ lesson, so I have some experience with combat sports. Why don’t MMA fighters use it in the Octogon and then start cleaning up and winning titles?
If it can’t prove itself in minimal-rules combat, then it isn’t the supreme self-defense art you claim it is. That’s what happened to TKD, Shotokan and all those are belt-factory styles once they got pitted against each other.

Let’s let an average sized guy with 3months BJJ training shoot at her waist and see what happens.

Please try to find a career other than a writer. As the Dos Equis ‘Most Interesting Man in the World’ said when asked about how to choose a career : “Find out what it is that you do not do well, and then don’t do that thing.”.

In line with the discussion on women in combat sports, Vox Day wrote an article almost ten years ago with a different experience than zorroprimo Beating down a woman Of course it isn’t impossible that both experiences are accurate.

In retrospect this and some contemporary posts by Vox on WND was probably my first introduction to the manosphere, although I didn’t find it proper until about three years ago.

Early in my marriage my ex, who was usually pound for pound on par with me and 5’11” tall, hit me hard enough with an elbow to leave a bruise that didn’t go away for weeks. I am not a small man, and have never shied away from taking a swing. I got out of the car, and took a back swing at my seat so hard I broke the seat in the rental car. I walked away before I did something more. After I cooled off, I was concerned that she had called the police, and I would go to jail and never have touched her. Instead she just held it against me for the next 12 years or so. She would always proclaim how scary I am when i am angry, even publicly to disarm me in any argument. Its all a racket to give women power over men at home and away.

I always find woman commando movies funny as hell… Take Salt with Angelina Jolie. Angie a woman that usually has her ribcage showing she is so skinny and here she is kicking all sorts of ass.

I’ve long noticed the same thing and am waiting for more media critics to point out the (false) gender-equality message such portrayals try to slip under the radar. It seems the kick-ass-female-heroine® theme is showing up more and more. For example, 20 years ago Disney animation brought us Princess Jasmine in Aladdin. Today, Disney needs to bring us Princess Merida in Brave–a lithe and empowered female handling an English longbow with ease. But by some estimates, that longbow required draw strength of between 90 and 110 pounds. That’s hard enough for most men to pull let alone a woman.

Now, no one is going to mistake the above movies for reality. They’re freakin cartoons after all! But is it the female ability to physically kick-ass like a man the thing that little girls are going to pick out as the implausible part? Hardly. Ditto with Angelina Jolie–or any number of other modern media-manufactured kick-as-female-heroines®.

I was twelve when me and my sister had an argument, and I walked away because I was mad and didn’t want to hit her, and I told her so. She followed me around insisting that I hit and kept it up. So I hit her (immediately feeling guilty and apologizing of course). That was the end of her belief in the female fantasy of Commando Girl. She later told me she had no idea how strong guys were and I was far from being the biggest kid around.

What is worrisome is that women are becoming increasingly aggressive as they buy into the woman-power meme. It looks like a design to create a generation of husband batterers who will have not only the legality but the delusional mindset that they are physically equal and the mentality to be violent.

Remember what I told you about the sex wars? This is part of it. The presumption that the male is always the first mover and primary aggressor.

You may know the laws, but what I doubt you know about are the policies, the second set of books as a great writer once called them.The second set of books is the public policies of your local law enforcement, women’s shelters, and district attorneys, hell even your court appointed representative if you were unfortunate enough to be poor and black, then you really are up shit creek if you are a man.

You have seen what this attitude is doing to your country, you watch as the great unraveling is occurring all around you. Your own men have chose to abolish themselves then to born, live, and die in the world your sisters have created.

“For my eyes have seen these acts so foreign to human nature, and now I tremble as I write.”

If you care enough, you’ll find out who said these words, and think about why I quote them.

One time my dad was tickling my nose while i slept. I woke up giving him an elbow right to the shnoz. I suppose i should have called someone, perhaps whatever group looks after seniors so i could get info on how to stop abusing my dad.

I had a dream i had sex with another women and when i woke up, my wife was angry and wanted to know who this person was. I suppose i should have called someone to get info on how to stop emotionally abusing my wife by having dream sex with a feminine figment of my imagination.

Seriously. She hits him with a scalding object, he has a nervous system, involuntary, defensive reaction..

She would always proclaim how scary I am when i am angry, even publicly to disarm me in any argument. Its all a racket to give women power over men at home and away.

It’s likely she was genuinely scared of you, at least for awhile. Women are impressionable, and easily confused. There was likely a mix–of fearful memories and naked manipulation–that she is ill-equipped to untangle.

Feminism demanded equality. Feminism demanded that we treat women as equals, not as ladies.

Feminism got what it wanted in spades. And women will be treated accordingly, as men.

An eye for an eye. Swing a pan, lose a tooth. There was a great quote by someone named “Catch” on another feminist’s blog. Here’s the exact exchange that sums all this up well:

catch says:
I solved this problem. Ladies typically enjoy chivalry, so that’s what I do. However, feminists require equality, so I treat them with the same courtesy and deference I give to men. That way, feminists get the equality they desire and ladies get the chivalry they desire. It works for everyone.

Leah says:
Are you saying there is a difference between a “feminist” and a “lady?”

catch says:
Yes. Feminists demand to be treated equally to men. Leaves no room to be treated “like a lady.”

It is about grasping power to control men and the relationship between men and women. It is an attempt to control the object that is both hated and envied–men– and to use ‘equality and justice to hide that fact.

Sure, call the domestic hotline, and be introduced to hateful and revenge driven females anxious for a justification to vent their anger on men and use any means to control them.

Fools. Wake up–this is cultural communism all over again and it is having the same results as in the Soviet union.

Let’em have at me, im going my own way. There’s no wealth to be seized ha! Just enough to live comfy on my own. I’ve abandoned any concept of manning up to wife up a carouseller. If the sh*t really hit the fan, i’d expat to Poland and have the satisfaction of having the last laugh on both a corrupt system and whatever whore got the ball rolling.

Besides. I’m a true gentleman. I’d never hit a lady.

Feminist manjaws wildly throwing punches on the other hand… heheh. Reminds me of a funny story involving my brother and a really stupid drunk chick who bit him hard once. Ill guarantee you she never bit another guy again after that ;)

Vox Die: “It may be easy for a woman who hasn’t taken a straight-line headshot from a 200-pound man to spin airy myths of martial equality, but no woman like “Penthouse” would ever believe them, only a man who hasn’t felt for himself how easy it is to smash a woman to the ground would take them seriously for a second.”
So very true.
When I started boxing I was in the beginner class, everyone held pads for eachother including the females for the males. The 14yo guys gave more resistance than a college aged woman. When you had a woman holding pads for you, you may as well have been punching the air.

Sharrukin:“She later told me she had no idea how strong guys were and I was far from being the biggest kid around.”
100% true.
I’m utterly convinced that most women have no idea how much stronger a man is than they are, unless they have been hit by men. They literally cannot concieve it.

Okay, I’ve read over a fair amount of the comments here, and some of this stuff is outright crazy.

A guy (or girl) not immediately hopping out of the way of the door when someone else announces that he is leaving, but continues to try to talk the other person down is holding someone captive?

Yelling at someone constitutes assault?

“By virtue of our size and strength men are likely to be on the giving end in the vast majority of cases to women. If the woman acted this way because she felt trapped and afraid who can blame her?”

I can. If she can’t take even a request not to leave, and feels the need to hurl someone out of her way, without trying to even shoulder past in a non-injuring way, she’s about as nuts as the husband in a previous story would be for punching her in the face in order to get out the door, even after she had refused to get out of the way multiple times.

There’s a huge amount of escalation in the middle between “declaring that you are leaving” and “throwing someone out of your way”, and you don’t just to skip all of the intermediate steps when there is no immediate threat to your safety.

On the story in the original post with the Fry Pan: the obvious answer is to call the police and press “attempted murder” (or whatever the UK equivalent is called) charges. There’s having an argument, there’s throwing something, then there’s attacking someone with a Lethal Weapon. She can see her kids again in 8-10 years when she gets out of prison.

Nearly all of this is the result of the push for “Domestic Violence Awareness”. Most men responded as “well, I don’t hit my wife; we’d rather not have people do that, right?”. Logical response, but the problem is that isn’t how the laws are written. The laws are straight sexist on DV, especially given the lack of provable evidence needed, the physical stature difference between women & men and the White Knight impulse in most court & legal systems. (And let’s not even get into what happens if someone outside the house calls something)

Which is really a problem since, here’s the BIG, IMPORTANT detail: women are far more violent than men. Aside from the social data backing this up, the truth is that female violence is rarely actually a physical threat, which is why women can get away with much more violence. Adding further, women are now mostly protected from male violence, leading them to rarely understand the power difference.

Also, let’s not mistake the power difference. Without a weapon or specific training (which is a form of weaponry), a random woman is not a physical threat to a random man, so long as the man is willing to strike back. The strength Standard Deviation is somewhere over 2, probably about 3. Women are far and away much physically weaker than men.

The flipside is something every guy should know by age 8: every other man *is* a physical threat, at all times. This is the utility of the natural male hierarchy. It keeps violence pretty minimal. But Western society has taken even the “modern” low levels of violence and insisted they be even lower. Which, as a result, has made actual violence much more brutal than it used to be. (Though it does lead to the occasionally hilarious “chicken dance” where two guys shove each other a bit, hoping the other swings first, then they can respond without it being assault)

So, we do have a society where women are allowed (frankly, protected) to be violent but men are told they’re being abusive if they respond. Oddly enough, if we stop telling guys to just “bare with it” and to actually press charges (though using the police seems pretty wimpy, though it’s really your only option), a whole lot of the issue changes. Female willingness to use “other male power” is another big key to the way the racket works.

On the martial arts stuff: Aikido is a wonderful force and low-leverage multiplier. The larger you are, the less functionally useful it really is. Further, Aikido has the offensive training of a stick, so a master against multiple students is normally a hilarious sight. I don’t doubt Zorroprime’s memories. It just isn’t normally applicable to roughly 99.5% (or more) of the female population.

For actual self-defense, awareness does 85% of the work. Past that, it’s really just the ability to dodge, counter on the dodge and know where to strike. If you have any competence with marital arts, you should know how to strike and break joints, disable your opponent and get out quickly. (1 decently place kick will cripple someone, go go oblique kicks to the knee) And, since we’re talking Stateside… concealed carry, baby!

There is a well documented and lauded double standard in terms of DV.
In review of the article – I would suspect the couple were to be professionally “observed” there would be would probably be a obvious tendency for the to be emotionally & verbally abusive (as well as emotional blackmail) without him realizing it. Because of his “betaness” and not taking “pack leader” when challenged – she will become more agressive due to inability to see it in herself among other psychological issues (lack of self control & upbringing). Without knowing the details – major damaged goods.
Regardless, he is a bad situation that is only going to get worse in DV and/or divorce or something along that line of “lots of misery”.

Aikido is a joke. A sad-sad joke, with highly ritualized combat that looks very impressive but falls apart once you try it with an opponent instead of a partner.

All my trainers were tough guys, and Lubomir IS a real warmachine, but it was due to the fact that all of them – including Lubomir(!) – studied something else aside from Aikido in their lives. Karate, boxing, TKD – anything that gave them some hitting and blocking skills.
They would then augment it with aikido for very impressive results – even practical, as it allows to subjugate the opponent with little lasting bodily harm.

But in its pure form, unsupplemented by some full contact MA, Aikido is a sad joke. This is why I am planning to get some Karate, Kick or Muay-Tai under my belt when I get the chance.

P.S. What you saw was probably jiyūwaza – looks very impressive and my trainer used to invite the whole class (about 15 guys) to do it against him. Which is actually easier than it sounds, as after about 6 you really just get in each others way. I used to comfortably do it against 3 guys.
But it’s just a show.

From the LE trenches,
In just the last tour of duty, ended 30 minutes ago, I arrested a drunk wife who coiled her fist and popped hubby in the lip, witnessed by 14yo son. The law is clear, she goes.
Wifey calls because Hubby is stressed out over special needs toddler, live-in in-laws and recent economic down turn at job (self employed contractor). Hubby pounds a table top in frustration and wifey calls police because she is “scared”. I ask if she was ever threatened, struck etc…no. I explained to wifey her hubby’s stress and requested that she show some empathy; she had a moment of clarity and apologized to hubby and me for wasting our time.
Arrive at scene to find wifey with a big shiner, toppled kitchen table, hubby gone. Report made, restraining order procedures given…professional victim, I’ve been here before, she will do nothing and he will continue to use her as a human punching bag…eastern European ethnics, big boozers. Kids cowering in rooms. My heart bleeds, yet I know there is nothing I can do.

— “She later told me she had no idea how strong guys were and I was far from being the biggest kid around.”
— I’m utterly convinced that most women have no idea how much stronger a man is than they are, unless they have been hit by men. They literally cannot concieve it.

Indeed. Thanks to modern technology, women no longer see men using their full strength as a matter of daily routine. Thus they are not aware, as their grandmothers were, of just how strong any normal man actually is. From Fred Reed:

My friend Catherine Aspy graduated from Harvard in 1992 and (no, I’m not on drugs) enlisted in the Army in 1995….She told me the following about her experiences: “I was stunned. The Army was a vast day-care center, full of unmarried teen-age mothers using it as a welfare home. I took training seriously and really tried to keep up with the men. I found I couldn’t. It wasn’t even close. I had no idea the difference in physical ability was so huge. http://www.fredoneverything.net/MilMed.shtml

Deti wrote – ” it’s been my observation that women are far more verbally abusive than men are, and are far more effective at it than men are. I suspect this provokes some physical abuse from husband on wife at times.”

“At times” is understating it. I don’t know how many times cops have told me about women who intentionally provoke their husbands, even if he’s drunk, knowing full well that he’s going to do what he did the last dozen times and give her a beating.

Looking Glass wrote – ” if we stop telling guys to just “bare with it” and to actually press charges (though using the police seems pretty wimpy, though it’s really your only option”

One reason police are “wimpy” is because they know if they get involved, and the least little thing happens afterward, they are going to be suspended, sued, and dragged through court. Once they’re on the scene, if anything bad subsequently happens, they get tarred and feathered for “not doing enough,” even if the victim told the police to leave after calling them (this is why around here, police *always* arrest someone in a DV case – if hey leave and hubby kills wifey 3 hours later, wifey’s family will sue the cops, not the broke-ass loser she married) .

————————–
The decline in standards for being an officer isn’t helping either, but that’s another post.

This is unfortunatgley all-too-typical: while there are serious DV problems where men dish it out, there are also serious DV problems where women dish it out and then complain when the husband defends himself.

There is no cultural, common or feminist support for men who are abused; in fact, these men are usually abused twice, by the women who abuse them and then by the system and society that scolds or even blames them for their suffering.

Even when this is pointed out, feminists say nothing- because they more or less believe in blaming men, or they fail to believe that men could possibly be victims, usually out of some ideological motivation.

I’m 52 and studied TKD for five years, then moved on to aikido. I watched a female 2nd-dan in aikido who was about 130 lbs, 30 years old, from Lebanon, NH, take on 3 guys simultaneously, all of them bigger than her and one of them big enough to make me be very nice to him. In 4 minutes she went totally Steven Segal on them and they knew what flight was all about.

You didn’t understand what you were seeing. Four minutes? In a real full-contact bout, she’d be KO’d in less than 30 seconds. The men weren’t trying to hurt her and they were part of the demonstration. I’ve seen plenty of demos like that before, as I fought mixed-style MMA for six years. They’re not reflective of reality. I’ve sparred with many women, including black belts from various styles, and not a single one of them ever even managed to land a solid punch or kick on me. Women are too too weak, too small, and more importantly, too slow to fight men. No amount of training can make up for the speed delta. Fighting a woman is like fighting someone who is moving in molasses. You have what feels like all day to avoid their strikes and can pretty much punch and kick them in the head at will. A 130-pound woman probably doesn’t even have enough bone density to block a full-force kick from a 200-pound man without having her wrist broken or her shoulder dislocated. The speed and strength gap is why you will never see women fighting men of the same weight in full-contact competition.

The fact is that most female black belts won’t spar at all with men who are below the intermediate belt levels. Why? Because the male beginners don’t have enough control to avoid hurting the women. We had one woman who only sparred with the men – she later married the instructor. After two years of training, she fought in her first tournament. She won it and no match lasted longer than one minute. After she stopped crying over the bloody noses and black eyes she’d given the other women, she commented that she couldn’t believe how slow they all were in comparison to what she was used to seeing.

It is always the fault of the man – whether he attacks the woman (very rare) or she attacks him (the opposite).

Consider the following banter I had as recently as last week with a female bank-teller who rather likes me, or at least finds me amusing, and I must confess she is quite good looking, though there is something not quite English about her. I don’t know what exactly – she reminds a bit of Nefretiti – anyway – I could not quite get what she was saying (behind the security glass) and rather than telling her to speak clearly, as I might have, I asked her to repeat and ended up doing so no less than three times. I still could not make out what she was saying – although it turned out she was only asking me how I was – and so (blaming myself) I explained that I had a slight hearing impediment, and added that that was the result of a punctured ear drum I had suffered as a result of – as I put it – having been “attacked by Negroes when in America”. Her response, was, and I quote, ” What did you to deserve that?” – so even though I was the victim, I was in the eyes of the woman somehow at fault, and probably a bit dangerous – so I am guessing it gave her the Gina tingles. I told her (very politically incorrect of course, but I was keen to see whether it made her squirm) that I had been assaulted because I was white (I was the only white person in the street) and they wanted my wrist-watch – which in the event they did not get.

I was there. You weren’t. Go suck an eggplant. It utterly blows me away how many men insist that aikido is a joke. I was there. You weren’t. She bitchslapped those guys into utter humiliation. It was a massacre. There was no contest. Now fucking grow up and put your puny cocks away. That girl massacred those guys and all your hamster excuses will not exonerate that. It was like watching a murder. Grip your goddamned balls and deal with it.

That’s like saying that because you were at an NFL game and we weren’t, no one else can know anything about pro football. Again, you clearly didn’t understand what you witnessed. What you saw was more akin to ritualized sacrifice than murder. Akido isn’t a joke, but it isn’t any more effective than Wing Chun, which is another soft style that was one of the three that I studied. It was the base from which Bruce Lee developed Jeet Kune Do. The others being Shorin-Ryu karate, a traditional hard style, and Kali, a brutal hard style that incorporates a lot of elbows and knees for both striking and blocking.

The soft styles all have drills where you attack in recognized ways in order to allow the defender to practice the defensive move. Even kali had a few of these, you sometimes see one of them in the movies when you see two fighters rapidly striking at each other at elbow range. It looks very violent and impressive, but it doesn’t even pretend to be actual combat. It’s just drill, or in the case you mentioned, a show demonstration. I’m guessing you never saw her spar seriously with a single man, but this was something that was put on for everyone to watch.

I’ve sparred with akido black belts before myself. As with all martial artists, they do best in their comfort zone, which is upright grappling range. Take them to the floor or keep them at hands range and they don’t do very well. Foot range is dangerous, though, as they love to grab legs. In my experience, it was the Muy Thai fighters – the real ones with the tattooed backs, not the American kickboxers – who were the most difficult. They give you centerline, but unless you can put them down fast with more force than they’re expecting, (and you usually can’t because they train precisely for this), they hammer you from either side and get in four shots to your one. Conventional wrestlers are also tough, although there are ways to deal with them too. I always found the pure kickers, the Tae Kwan Do and Tang Soo Do guys, to be the easiest to beat. The soft styles, akido, wing chun, and jujitsu, were probably the second-easiest group.

” Instead she just held it against me for the next 12 years or so. She would always proclaim how scary I am when i am angry, even publicly to disarm me in any argument. Its all a racket to give women power over men at home and away.”

That’s called a shit-test. She was trying to determine how comfortable you were with your masculinity. The appropriate response would have been to extend and amplify, something along the lines of “Damn straight bitch so don’t piss me off or I’ll go all Hulk on your ass and start bustin heads round here”

@VD
You are right. However, its not the style’s fault. Usually soft style martial artist (including those of Wing Chun) simply don’t train against enemies who behave like opponents instead of buddies. At these first encounters our soft martial artist gets humiliated agianst thai box, boxer etc fighters, because, well, they behave like the clueless beta at a female-only environment. (Don’t know what to do, when to do it, what to avoid.) After like a few hundred good working hours with real opponents, these styles show their uses (for example, a Wing Chun practionier goes 45 degrees and chops down the boxer with cutting palm motions, and suddenly its the boxer who is out comfort zone). So again, its not the style, its lazyness and unfounded ego.

I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for men to stop treating women with physical deference. That may be what they deserve, and it may fit the legal and sociological framework they’ve demanded, but it’s just natural for men to want to take care of women and keep them safe. A few guys will beat down that instinct, but most won’t. We have a better chance of fixing society so that it once again conforms to human nature, than of changing human nature to fit a twisted society.

If you want to see how much stronger men are, just ask a woman to help you move a couch sometime. I could lift one end with one hand, and my ex — no shrinking violet — would do well to budge hers. I’ve been carrying something with a woman, and ended up just lifting the whole thing over my head, because it was easier not to have her dragging me down. There really is no comparison.

I also think (although this is necessarily subjective) that men can ignore far more pain than women can. We’re always told how labor pains are so much worse than anything else, which means women are tougher. But labor pains only happen during labor. Men doing manly things get banged up and cut all the time. I’ve banged my elbow or hit my head hard enough that a woman seeing it asked if I needed medical attention, and I had already shrugged it off. Women don’t get knocked around nearly as much, and when they do, it usually means everything comes to a halt and cold compresses and pain killers come out.

Not big enough to bring out all the pipsqueaks with Napoleon complex. I had to beat down a few.

Oh, that did happen. I guess I was just more of a wrestler than a puncher, so I’d get them in an arm lock or grab them by the throat. The worst was when one kid just wouldn’t take the hint, so I dangled him by his ankles over a stairway. Other kids kept wanting me to fight the biggest guy in the class — six inches taller, but not as broad in the chest. Fortunately, he was as mild-mannered as me, and neither of us cared who would win. I don’t have any illusions about how I’d do in a real fight against someone with experience, though. I hope my farm-bred toughness would help, but it’d probably just mean I’d stand up to the beating longer.

It utterly blows me away how many men insist that aikido is a joke. I was there. You weren’t.
It was like watching a murder. Grip your goddamned balls and deal with it.

I was willing to buy your story the first time, but now you’re making me rethink it.

“Almost 24% of all relationships had some violence, and half (49.7%) of those were reciprocally violent. In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases.”

Is his wife abusive? Is tropical storm Sandy a hurricane? Is it class four?

All of these are meaningless questions asked by people who are sheltered enough to not have a connection to real life. They live in pristine, plastic bubbles, insulated and isolated from the consequences of their own actions.

Is the wife abusive? To answer this question is to give it validity, of which it has none. The consequences of her action in a non-feminine superior culture (allowed only through the brutal subjugation of men, by other men) would be immediate reprisal of a level sufficient to make certain that the event was never repeated. To answer violence with words is to invite it.

The only way to defeat a despot is to be more forcefully despotic. All women are despots.

There’s a double standard and the man is always presumed guilty. But yeah, what she’s doing is abuseive, and the guy needs to get out of there because it doesn’t end well for him. She can keep doing what she’s doing, and if he takes any action the full weight of the courts will fall on him.

I’ve been in his shoes. A girlfriend threw everything in sight at me, then attacked me with a knife when I came home late one night. I decked her and knocked her ass out cold, she was snoring on the floor, and then I got the hell out of there and slept on a park bench. (re: the martial arts discussion above – she’d studied Taekwando, I studied Hapkido. Didn’t make a difference either way, testosterone and maybe adrenaline carried the day). I went back for my stuff the next day and she didn’t remember having done that, as she’d been in some sort of booze & Xanax induced haze. She had a bit of a bruise on her cheek that thankfully she was embarassed about when i told her the whole story. Coulda wrecked my life right there though.

Wow. I recently lived with a woman who came to be unstable (my assessment). If she got upset, it quickly devolved into berating and belittling tirades on all the same old topics. I took to sleeping in the spare room into which she would barge while I was trying to sleep to carry on. This behaviour drew out my own bad behaviour. No violence though I did push her out of the room once.

Fast forward a few weeks and she pulls the “you scare me” routine ultimately leading to an EPO. Lesson learned? No tolerance for lack of human respect. I don’t want to be in the position of violating my character because of a childish woman.
Fallout? No kids. No common law in my province due to short duration. No shared property. BUT..she now has control of my possessions since I can have no contact. The system has punished me severely for something for which she is solely responsible.

However, its not the style’s fault. Usually soft style martial artist (including those of Wing Chun) simply don’t train against enemies who behave like opponents instead of buddies. At these first encounters our soft martial artist gets humiliated agianst thai box, boxer etc fighters, because, well, they behave like the clueless beta at a female-only environment.

That’s surely true. And having spent literally years studying Wing Chun, I’m certainly not going to denigrate the soft styles. Nevertheless, I can say from experience that certain styles tend to be more effective than others against specific styles. For example, our instructor actually had to ban the use of Kali blocks (with the fist or the point of the elbow rather than with the wrist or outside of the hand), while sparring because so many guys were getting their wrists and ankles broken while striking. If you’re a Tae Kwan Do guy, you’d much rather have your kick blocked by a Wing Chun practitioner than a Kali guy.

The reason MMA is so effective is because it takes from the best of the various styles and leaves the less effective elements behind. In most cases, a mixed fighter is going to be much more dangerous than a single style one. In fact, one of the maxims of our dojo was “always be where your opponent is most uncomfortable”. Close with a kicker. Kick with a boxer. Keep grapplers and wrestlers at hand range. And so forth.

I think my favorite strategy was when someone asked what was most effective against a Muy Thai fighter, since two of them had put a pretty good beatdown on a few of us the week before at the open sparring night. Our sensei pondered the question a moment, then smiled and said “probably a gun”.

A few weeks later, he showed us his real answer. Get them on the ground.

I watched a female 2nd-dan in aikido who was about 130 lbs, 30 years old, from Lebanon, NH, take on 3 guys simultaneously, all of them bigger than her and one of them big enough to make me be very nice to him.

That’s cause they were play fighting. So the tactic of tackling her and dragging her to the floor and beat the living *bleep* out of her didn’t apply. In a real situation, it very often does go to the floor and with three guys there is no way she can credibly stop that. At that point it is game over for her 130 pound self. Which is why guns are a great defense for women.

I’d like to focus on the major, major issue that nobody likes to talk about because even a feminist high on moxie will not want to talk about it. So it’s been designated “off limits”.

The MAJOR MAJOR problem with “the slap” as felony crime is that it can’t be proved in any real way. So, the wife or girlfriend claims the man “slapped her”. Or better yet, “threw her”. She doesn’t even have bruises. The boyfriend/husband says “I didn’t. She is lying.” Now, how do you solve that? Neighbors heard them yelling. Well of course they were yelling because the girlfriend/wife was mad enough to call the cops. So. How do you prove it either way? The boyfriend/husband sticks to his “we were yelling about x, I didn’t hit her.” The girlfriend/wife sticks to “we were yelling about x, he hit me.”. Maybe use a Magic Eight Ball? What if the Magic Eight Ball says the woman is lying, should she go to jail for making a very serious false accusation? What if it says “Maybe”? Should both of them go to jail? Neither of them? Each of them for half the length of their sentence?

I know! I know! We will declare the female a goodie who never lies and the male a baddie who always lies! Indeed, all females are goodies whose word is in all ways superior to all low status men! No matter what! CHECKMATE! We have now proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the boyfriend/husband should have his life destroyed! Yeah!

And that brings us to the heart of “law” in America. Results are determined by social status. The more important person is “the good” and the less important person “the bad”.

Without this “law”, the domestic abuse “legal system” would collapse.

Of course, this rule doesn’t just apply to women. It also applies to rich people. And the police.

And I’ll say something else, women themselves don’t care about being pushed or slapped once or twice that much. I saw a woman harassing a man(not related or married) and he was clearly getting angry and she was having a grand old time because if he hit her she could destroy his life. Then he said something that indicated it would go way beyond “the slap” and her mouth shut in a second and her face paled. Last word she said. Because it’s FUNNY to bait a man into a life destroying “the slap” but not FUNNY at all to get a major beat down.

@whatever, I was at a bar and saw a similar scenario. This woman was baiting men all around her. One the most prickly women I have ever seen. Bumped into me at the bar and tried to get another guy to deck me because she spilled her drink. The other guy looked at her and said “I am finished with your crap, you can leave or hit the floor.” She looked around for support, but no one was coming to her rescue as she was being stared down by a 250+ lbs lean man at just over 6′. All the men in the bar knew that drunk or not that guy was going to hurt you if you stepped in. The bouncer/doorman just opened the door to suggest everyone make a clear path for her. She slithered away quietly.

There is no doubt that the double-whammy of absurdly biased DV laws coupled with fatherless homes has created this mess. I doubt if 100 years ago this was a big problem because

1. real male-against-female violence was mitigated by the girl knowing and having a relationship with her father; her husband would know that her male relatives wouldn’t let him get away with real violence. Any real DV would be remedied by the woman’s father/brothers.
2. false DV claims probably were rare because there wasn’t the big sympathy machine to provide the emotional pay off – girls love sympathy, they really do.
3. female-against-male violence was probably handled in such a way that in didn’t get repeated; it could still be handled that way, except men are legally hamstrung. It would be highly instructive for women to see what it really looks like when a violent female gets hit back by a male, given that the average human male is 30% larger than the average female.

@Buck, back from his tour of duty against the citizen/enemies who pay his salary.
“I explained to wifey her hubby’s stress and requested that she show some empathy; she had a moment of clarity and apologized to hubby and me for wasting our time.
Arrive at scene to find wifey..”

Why were you in the home when she recanted?
Is it your mandate to inspect every corner of your world for any possible danger?
If so, I have a dangerously dirty toilet bowl to report.
Buck,”your heart bleeds” well it should not,you wrongfully think it’s your job to police interpersonal relations.It is not your job,you are on what is called “mission creep.”
What would be enough to satisfy your desire for a world free of violence,and how much violence are you prepared to dish out to achieve that?

I want the readership to see that the ‘Bucks’of this world think it’s their legal right and obligation to inspect past the fourth amendment protections.This Unconstitutional law was passed by the Supreme Court on the lie that it affected interstate commerce.The could find no compelling reason other than “lack of tourism.”
His legal ‘right’ is based upon a false and thin premise.
Buck has his LEO “Bill of Rights’ and will never be subjected to the loss of his Bill of Rights like the rest of us “enemy combatants.”

Which in turn leads me to say that the only way to free of this tyranny is not to have the “protected class” in your home.
The Police ill not come if not called,they cannot arrest what they do not see.
This your only protection in the face of the loss of due process and presumption of innocence+the loss of Constitutional protections.
No woman in the home-exactly what the queer and lesbian social engineers want,and what Buck so righteously enforces,the death of the hetero-nuclear family.

“To ask which type of abuse is worse is something I don’t think is important. It’s not a competition.”

We have to deal with facts not feelings. Damage can indeed be compared or we should start saying that any type of emotional abuse from women to men should be considered domestic violence as well. It can either be measure and quantified, or it’s all fair and equal game. She yells at him or insults him in public and she needs to have the police called on her for domestic violence.

No more than a century ago [this was written in 1922], even by American law, the most sentimental in the world, the husband was the head of the family firm, lordly and autonomous. He had authority over the purse-strings, over the children, and even over his wife. He could enforce his mandates by appropriate punishment, including the corporal. His sovereignty and dignity were carefully guarded by legislation, the product of thousands of years of experience and ratiocination. He was safeguarded in his self-respect by the most elaborate and efficient devices, and they had the support of public opinion.

Consider, now, the changes that a few short years have wrought. Today, by the laws of most American states — laws proposed, in most cases, by maudlin and often notoriously extravagant agitators, and passed by sentimental orgy — all of the old rights of the husband have been converted into obligations. He no longer has any control over his wife’s property; she may devote its income to the family or she may squander that income upon idle follies, and he can do nothing. She has equal authority in regulating and disposing of the children, and, in the case of infants, more than he. There is no law compelling her to do her share of the family labour: she may spend her whole time in cinema theatres or gadding about the shops as she will. She cannot be forced to perpetuate the family name if she does not want to. She cannot be attacked with masculine weapons, e.g.. fists and firearms, when she makes an assault with feminine weapons, e.g.. snuffling, invective and sabotage. Finally, no lawful penalty can be visited upon her if she fails absolutely, either deliberately or through mere incapacity, to keep the family habitat clean, the children in order, and the victuals eatable.

Now view the situation of the husband. The instant he submits to marriage, his wife obtains a large and inalienable share in his property, including all he may acquire in future; in most American states the minimum is one-third, and, failing children, one-half. He cannot dispose of his real estate without her consent; he cannot even deprive her of it by will. She may bring up his children carelessly and idiotically, cursing them with abominable manners and poisoning their nascent minds against him, and he has no redress. She may neglect her home, gossip and lounge about all day, put impossible food upon his table, steal his small change, pry into his private papers, hand over his home to the Periplaneta americana, accuse him falsely of preposterous adulteries, affront his friends, and lie about him to the neighbours — and he can do nothing. She may compromise his honour by indecent dressing, write letters to moving-picture actors, and expose him to ridicule by going into politics — and he is helpless.

Let him undertake the slightest rebellion, over and beyond mere rhetorical protest, and the whole force of the state comes down upon him. If he corrects her with the bastinado or locks her up, he is good for six months in jail. If he cuts off her revenues, he is incarcerated until he makes them good. And if he seeks surcease in flight, taking the children with him, he is pursued by the gendarmerie, brought back to his duties, and depicted in the public press as a scoundrelly kidnapper, fit only for the knout. In brief, she is under no legal necessity whatsoever to carry out her part of the compact at the altar of God, whereas he faces instant disgrace and punishment for the slightest failure to observe its last letter. For a few grave crimes of commission, true enough, she may be proceeded against. Open adultery is a recreation that is denied to her. She cannot poison her husband. She must not assault him with edged tools, or leave him altogether, or strip off her few remaining garments and go naked. But for the vastly more various and numerous crimes of omission — and in sum they are more exasperating and intolerable than even overt felony — she cannot be brought to book at all.

The scene I depict is American, but it will soon extend its horrors to all Protestant countries. The newly-enfranchised women of every one of them cherish long programs of what they call social improvement, and practically the whole of that improvement is based upon devices for augmenting their own relative autonomy and power. The English wife of tradition, so thoroughly a femme covert, is being displaced by a gadabout, truculent, irresponsible creature, full of strange new ideas about her rights, and strongly disinclined to submit to her husband’s authority, or to devote herself honestly to the upkeep of his house, or to bear him a biological sufficiency of heirs.

We have to deal with facts not feelings. Damage can indeed be compared or we should start saying that any type of emotional abuse from women to men should be considered domestic violence as well. It can either be measure and quantified, or it’s all fair and equal game. She yells at him or insults him in public and she needs to have the police called on her for domestic violence.

There isn’t even an attempt to recognize the fact that women can do anything wrong. One of the responses to the first case I listed was a link to a place called penelopehouse. In their definition page of DV it is specifically defined as things men do to women. They don’t even leave the theoretical possibility of it being the other way around:

USING EMOTIONAL ABUSE

Insulting her in public or in private
Putting down her friends and family
Making her feel bad about herself
Calling her names
Making her think she’s crazy
Playing mind games
Humiliating her
Making her feel guilty
Using Male Privilege; acting like “Master of the Castle”
Treating her like a servant
Making all the big decisions
Being the one to define men’s and women’s roles.

In the first case in the OP, what I think many are missing is that she had cornered the man and he was clearly extremely agitated. She tells us that he was so angry he knocked something off the table. She had him in fight or flight mode, and deliberately closed off the avenue of flight. When he said he needed to leave, she stood her ground blocking the exit and said “That won’t be necessary.” If you are a man, your only option is to find a way to tune her out at that point. But if “making her feel bad about herself” constitutes DV, then invoking flight or fight and then blocking flight should be very high up on the list, especially given the extreme consequences to a man of being accused of DV. I don’t say this lightly, but a woman who will do that to a man (invoke fight or flight and then corner him) is creating justifiable grounds for immediate divorce. It is a profound act of betrayal, and demonstrates a willingness to tear the family apart. She is deliberately using the injustice of the system combined with his own primal psychology in a quest for drama or a naked power play.

I’m utterly convinced that most women have no idea how much stronger a man is than they are, unless they have been hit by men. They literally cannot concieve it.

Funny story: My dad let me ‘beat’ him at an arm wrestle when I was 6 and I went around bragging that I was stronger than my dad! LOL I honestly believed it at the time (he made my ‘win’ seem realistic). Men do have a tendency to let women win, then they think they are tougher than they are and have no clue how little it would take for a man to overwhelm then.

Since most men are not going to abuse women or use their full strength on us, we have no idea just how much more powerful men are (nor how protective of us they are, which has come to work to men’s own detriment) and how easily they could seriously injure us if they wanted to.

That woman who thinks her husband abused her is a drama queen who bruises easily, most likely. She could have just, you know, got out of the damn way, considering that he was visibly agitated, but then she wouldn’t be able to claim victim status. And since men have been effectively castrated by the law, most women don’t even experience being restrained by a man when she loses her rag over something.

Just astounding that one of the answers to the guy who hit back after being hit with a scalding pan calls him an abuser! Surely this isn’t just simple stupidity at work here. You really have to be working an agenda to be able to say that with a straight face.

Another story: A town bike my brother knows once got hit in a bar by a Vietnam vet who is known to be a bit of a live wire, and everyone was all “OMG, he hit a GIRL!” Even after the rest of the story was out – i.e. that she had punched him in the testicles first – they still said “but he hit a GIRL!” No, he hit a silly slag who punched him in the nuts! Women really do think they are immune to consequences, but that’s because they often are when the law gets involved.

I can honestly tell your readers Dalrock,that law based upon emotion is the gateway to black armbands and brown shirts.The Soviets called it “The knock in the night.”
The Germans called it “The Disappearances.”
My feeling?
I want that brand of ‘the other’ off my chest.
I had thought we were only one generation away from total recognition of the concept of Liberty,most of the comments here indicate it’s already done.

A late and lamented friend of mine had just finished cleaning his large caliber pistol and was putting it back together on the kitchen table when his wife ente the room. She chose this moment to unleash a tirade enumerating all of his faults as a husband and a human being. He looked down at the gun, loaded it, put it in his gun case, packed his suitcase, and left. He said he could not see staying married to anyone that dumb.

“I don’t say this lightly, but a woman who will do that to a man (invoke fight or flight and then corner him) is creating justifiable grounds for immediate divorce. It is a profound act of betrayal, and demonstrates a willingness to tear the family apart. She is deliberately using the injustice of the system combined with his own primal psychology in a quest for drama or a naked power play.”

This really can’t be overstated. When a woman does this, she has made herself an adversary and essentially declared war on her husband. She is brandishing and threatening him with all her weapons (divorce theft, police, arrest, criminal record) and simultaneously hamstringing and sandbagging him (leaving physical force as his only means of defense or escape, knowing she will then cry “wife abuse”). She is knowingly putting her husband into a no win situation, and essentially telling him “I have all the power here. I can block your freedom of movement with impunity. Any time I want, I can take all the authority in this marriage by simply claiming DV.”

My ex-wife was physically, verbally and emotionally abusive to my daughter, from the day she was born until the ex’s arrest when my daughter was 4. She was abusive to me as well, threatening to kill me in my sleep and other joyful things. She was of course given a suspended sentence, no conviction or time served, and Children’s Aid said all she was guilty of was inappropriate discipline and had no trouble with her being around the children.

My mom was worried about the impact of this on me, and called community services (here in Canada the healthcare is all public) to ask about what services they offered to abused men. The woman who answered, a fine upstanding public employee, told her that there was no such thing, that woman were never abusers, and if a woman ever did do something to a man, it would have been a reaction to something he did.

Oh, and after being removed from the home, my ex decided the shelter she was in wasn’t good enough, pleaded for the abused label and got sent off to a brand-new center for abused women, located in a very nice two-car garage neighbourhood, and the shelter was kind enough to ask the court to keep the kids away from this horrible man, based on nothing more than the words of a sociopath with a magical vjjj.

I happen to know about this lovely shelter (paid for at taxpayer’s expense of course), because I was able to secure custody of my children (very good lawyer, lucked out with a judge that actually considered the evidence), and need the police to go and get my son out of there, Children’s Aid having decided that he should stay with her after her arrest. Because you see, of course, such shelters are allowed to set their own protocols, such as no male within 100m meters of them, and the police will enforce them with vigour, so a cop was necessary to go and get my son for me. Thank God for a good lawyer, who thought to put in the order that I could ask for police enforcement of it, or else they could have just kept him there.

I will refrain from further comment out of respect for our host’s wishes.

Freebird, relax from your all-cops-suck mind warp for a moment.
I don’t intrude myself in other people’s lives, I am dispatched at the request of others.
When I’m summoned I have to quickly determine…
A) do I need to act to keep the peace, my primary statutory function…
B) determine if a crime has occurred…
C) determine if the parties want Govt involved further, (should an arrest be made).
Believe me I do not want to arrest people if at all possible and I use every communication skill I possess to talk people out of an arrest. My arrests in most cases are upon signed complaints from the parties involved. Traffic enforcement is the majority of my self initiated complaints.
I only enter someones home if allowed (invited) or I must to stop a violent act in progress.
I take the constitution very seriously and I’m well aware I am subject to the same laws.
Yes, my heart bleeds for children raised in a home with violent, loud, drunken nitwits and the milquetoasts who allow their exposure to this pathology.,..but, there is nothing I can do about it. (thus the heart bleeds….duh!). Isn’t it common knowledge that the children of abusers will in all likelihood grow up to be abusers themselves.
I wish irresponsible people did not procreate…all I can do is wish.

For 20 or more years America has gone “community policing” and citizens have been encouraged to just “call the police”…This is feminist-thought pure and simple, don’t make a decision for yourself, have a Govt agent do it for you.
I would much prefer to spend my time rooting out burglars and thieves, rather than playing shrink, something I was never trained for and don’t want to do.

Yeah, that’s why I stated that he should leave and not come back. This is a shit-test that seems impossible to pass. It’s a cram-down into beta wherein she is insisting on taking all of the power once that line has been crossed I don’t think the man should ever trust her not to do it again.

Those deviations are like saying “my dad can beat up your dad”….definitely as mature. WHO CARES? Im wondering if we have a visitor whose other name is/was WWC at Christian Forums.

I have a buddy as we speak who is out on his ass because his wife cried fear. He is a red pill neophyte and I have been shoveling info to him as best I can. It helped my evangelizing about red pill when his lawyer told him, hey bub, yer f*&ked

Wow, Dalrock, I just read what you wrote as a comment on the first story at Yahoo Answers. Do you really think this incident would justify the man immediately divorcing the woman, despite the existence of three children? She clearly misunderstood the dynamic and is trolling for sympathy, no doubt. But if he were standing in front of you, would you seriously advise him to immediately file for divorce?

@sunshinemary – I would. I have been there. What she is demonstrating is that she has lost respect for him, and is now vying for control over him. In the modern culture, there is no one that will dial her back into a position that is fit for marriage to this particular man for sure, maybe not any man. The kids will be affected less by a swift a decisive move by him than a drawn out power struggle in the marriage that ends in divorce when they are older. Been there and done that.

I agree, the power imbalance is out of control. Once she has used the Threatpoint and put her hand on the plunger the man needs to start putting distance between himself and the abusive woman. No time to spare.

Insulting her in public or in private
Putting down her friends and family
Making her feel bad about herself
Calling her names
Making her think she’s crazy
Playing mind games
Humiliating her
Making her feel guilty
Using Male Privilege; acting like “Master of the Castle”
Treating her like a servant
Making all the big decisions
Being the one to define men’s and women’s roles.

With the exception of item nine (which is actually an inversion of the princess syndrome [“A real would let me have my way!”]), this list can be summarized: When a man acts like a typical American woman, he’s being abusive.

Sunshinemary, her contempt for him is patently obvious. In Game terms, he is already pretty seriously Betaized, and as I Art Laughing stated, she’s in the process of a huge cramdown, although I argue she’s trying to jam him into Omega status. He is in a no-win scenario. If he goes along, her contempt for him will only grow, and at some point either she will file for divorce, or she’ll start cheating on him (and then file). Based on the stated evidence, this marriage is done. Toast. Burnt toast, in fact.

He might – might – be able to co-exist with her, if he does all the things Deti and other suggested to Some Guy – prepare for war . Because IMO his soon to be ex wife is setting him up for a major DV accusation, which is a first step to utter devastation and divorce theft. If he can make it clear to her exactly where that is going to lead – including the consumption of all the money they have in the world in paying attornies, a major court fight in which he will ensure that all dirty laundry is fully aired out where her friends can see it, total alienation of family members, etc. followed by eventual alienation of their children from her, leading to a lonely existence once the youngest leaves home – an old age of cats – then perhaps she will look into the abyss, and draw herself back.

She has declared war. The only question is whether she fully understands that, or not.

Contempt of a woman for her man is like acid. She is walking around the sub floor of a steel framed building, spraying acid on every exposed strructural beam, and giggling at the vapors. It may give her pleasure now, but what she is doing is burning through any affection he has for her with the acid of her contempt.

That damage is not easy to repair. Maybe it is impossible to repair. She may have permanently destroyed the affection he had for her when they married. He is leaving, if she persists. He can “leave” in his mind in various ways, if he cannot leave physically. And he can leave by dying, in various ways – car accident, liver destroyed by drinking, hunting accident, etc. It might be better for him to leave physically, now, and live a more normal life, than remain and die sooner by inches under the thumb of a woman who has such contempt for him.

Reading how this discussion has progressed has brought a few things to my mind. Both things that it brings to mind are demonstrations of my Blue-Pill self.

1. The former roommate I lived with was a women who divorced at 28. About 6 months after I moved in, she had her boyfriend move in. He was an ok dude, had a bunch of drug problems years ago, but had cleaned himself up quite a bit. After he had been living the house for about 6 months, they started to get into gigantic shouting fights. Back then, I blamed him for making her angry (usually over something insipidly minor). However, I now realize that she was the instigator of them. She would continue the shouting and arguing even when he would demolish her points. She would then alter and adjust her points to change the frame, just to keep the argument going. Back then, if things ever got physical I swore would side with and defend her. However, I realize now that it would likely have been her that had initiated things if physical confrontation had happened between them. Her boyfriend, while he yelled at her, remained in almost total control. He would yell at her, then be talking calmly to me minutes later, while she was off fuming in irrelevant rage.

2. This one single mom from church that tried to seduce me had many relationship problems (3 kids from at least 2 men). Some of her exes had been deemed violent and convicted for various things. A year ago she asked me if it was legal for someone who had been convicted of violent things to own a gun, to which I told her “no”. I guess one of her exes had acquired a rifle. Reading these comments makes me wonder if these guys were actually as bad as she claimed and if they were really guilty. Now I have my doubts, and based on her personality, (fiery, creole, hispanic) I can totally see her antagonizing these men and even attacking them.

I guess when I read what the woman wrote, I am not able to fill in all the details that everyone else seems to get. I see a woman who has been brainwashed by the feminist I-see-domestic-violence-everywhere culture. It seemed to me like she was asking what to do because she didn’t understand the dynamic that had played out. I was glad to see the first part of D’s comment, which explained it pretty well. But D says

He told you he needed to leave, and you stood your ground blocking his exit and said “That won’t be necessary.” You felt you had an advantage by keeping him literally trapped in that room, so you decided to block off the opportunity of flight knowing that if he tried to leave, you could physically stop him using the profoundly biased Domestic Violence legal process to hold him hostage*. In a primal sense, you were *insisting* on a fight from him knowing that if he didn’t resist what you were baiting him to do you could destroy his life. He grabbed your hands and pushed you away because he was afraid that if he started to move past you gently you would refuse to let him pass and also likely engage in a physical fight. He didn’t want to fight you, so he controlled your hands so you couldn’t hit, scratch, or hold him and separated you from him as quickly as he could while escaping the physical trap you had set for him. This took a good amount of force, because you didn’t want to let him out without a fight.

What the woman had written was this:

We both had had a few drinks at home with some friends for his birthday. He was mad at me and we went to our bedroom to talk about it. I shut the door behind us and was standing in front of it. He was very mad and hit a cup of water across the bedroom. And said he was leaving. I told him there’s no reason to leave and that we should jut talk and move on with our night. He walked over to me and grabbed my wrists and threw me into the bed.

What Dalrock wrote that she said is not what she herself claims she said. I’m surprised that everyone seems to agree that she was holding him hostage; I see two tipsy people and a woman who really, really didn’t get the dynamic that had happened. She most definitely was not the victim of domestic violence, assuredly. But I see someone here who is culturally brainwashed and ignorant, not necessarily someone who had the full scope of evil female intentions. I’m not claiming to be right about this, though; I’m willing to concede that I might be reading the situation wrong.

@ Robert in Arabia
An armed marriage should be a polite marriage, no doubt about it.

The lack of respect doesn’t come from the drinks. The boldness to express it does. It is not so much that she has evil intent, but the results of such a confrontation in the corrupt culture you have already described will ultimately lead to the same results. If she has no desires now to act in such away, she will get bullied into to it by her girlfriends who will not only push the feminist lines seen throughout the thread, but also rejoice in a fallen sister. Sadly in western culture, women negatively compete. They seek to watch people fail worse than they do. They struggle to rejoice in successes of other women that they themselves have not achieved already. This drives a culture that wants to bring down pretty much all marriages, except their own, but then other women will help ensure that happens to them too.

After he had been living the house for about 6 months, they started to get into gigantic shouting fights. (ar10308)

“Marriage is six days of excitement, and the world’s record for sex.
Five more weeks of getting to know each other, fencing, lunging, and pulling back, finding each other’s weaknesses, and then the games begin.
After six months, each one has made a decision. The honeymoon is over, and marriage or divorce begins — until further notice.”
– Eric Berne

He wrote that 40+ yrs ago, but it’s amazing how often six months (+/-) comes up in the anecdotes. I’ve heard some people claiming a guy might get 2-3 good years out of a wife if he’s lucky, but I think they’re waaaaay over-estimating it.

Wow, Dalrock, I just read what you wrote as a comment on the first story at Yahoo Answers. Do you really think this incident would justify the man immediately divorcing the woman, despite the existence of three children? She clearly misunderstood the dynamic and is trolling for sympathy, no doubt. But if he were standing in front of you, would you seriously advise him to immediately file for divorce?

She gives him very little choice in the issue. If she is unrepentant, his only other option is to wait until she escalates to a point where he won’t be able to control his actions. He has an obligation not to let it get to that point.

What Dalrock wrote that she said is not what she herself claims she said. I’m surprised that everyone seems to agree that she was holding him hostage; I see two tipsy people and a woman who really, really didn’t get the dynamic that had happened. She most definitely was not the victim of domestic violence, assuredly. But I see someone here who is culturally brainwashed and ignorant, not necessarily someone who had the full scope of evil female intentions. I’m not claiming to be right about this, though; I’m willing to concede that I might be reading the situation wrong.

Show me where I misrepresented what she described. Specifically, which of the following is not correct:

1) She knew he was extremely agitated (he was very angry, hit the cup).
2) He told her he wanted to leave.
3) With him in a flight or fight state and him asking to leave (see 1&2), she stood her ground and told him no.

Note also my further explanation in my answer there. He didn’t want to fight her. What she doesn’t tell us is her body language and intent in physically blocking his exit. His read of her actions was clearly that she didn’t intend to let him out without a struggle. He wanted to prevent her from hitting/scratching/grabbing him, so he took control of her hands for a very short period of time and then immediately forced a separation. He didn’t want a fight, and he (I would say rightly) judged that she wouldn’t let him out without one.

Where he went wrong was in trying to get past her at all. Unfortunately from a practical perspective he had no legal right to leave that room until she decided to permit it, no matter how much she badgered him, no matter how many times he asked her to be allowed to leave. His only option is to let her do with him as she wishes until she grows tired of the power play. And this is the crux of the issue. She knows this. All wives know this. A wife who will use this knowledge and not repent can’t be trusted. It is a profound betrayal.

The lack of respect doesn’t come from the drinks. The boldness to express it does.

Yea, verily so. In Vino, Veritas. She has shown exactly what she thinks of him.
This is not some little school girl taunting a pit bull behind a strong fence with a stick, ignorant of what that dog could do if it got out of the yard. This is a strong, independent, empowered, modern woman who is fully aware of the law and whose side it is on, picking a fight. Picking a fight secure in the knowledge that no matter what, she wins it.

(If there is any woman in the Anglosphere between the age of 14 and 70 who is not aware at least to some degree what the DV laws are and how they are enforced, I have yet to meet her.)The lack of respect doesn’t come from the drinks. The boldness to express it does.

Yea, verily so. In Vino, Veritas. She has shown exactly what she thinks of him.
This is not some little school girl taunting a pit bull behind a strong fence with a stick, ignorant of what that dog could do if it got out of the yard. This is a strong, independent, empowered, modern woman who is fully aware of the law and whose side it is on, picking a fight. Picking a fight secure in the knowledge that no matter what, she wins it. *

*(If there is any woman in the Anglosphere between the age of 14 and 70 who is not aware at least to some degree what the DV laws are and how they are enforced, I have yet to meet her.)

Unfortunately from a practical perspective he had no legal right to leave that room until she decided to permit it, no matter how much she badgered him, no matter how many times he asked her to be allowed to leave.

Hmm, ok, that’s a good point that I hadn’t fully considered. He wasn’t so much physically a hostage as he was legally a hostage, which makes more sense.

As to where you may have misrepresented what she wrote – she wrote, “There’s no reason to leave” and you wrote, “That won’t be necessary.” I don’t know what she really said, of course, but what you wrote seems like it would sound a lot more threatening that what she claims she said. I could see the first comment not being totally unreasonable if she hadn’t been standing in front of the door.

Someone help me out here. Is the problem that she was blocking his way and he can’t legally move her without her shrieking abuse? I really do want to understand, but (being female) I tend to run everything through the personal narrative filter to understand it. When my husband and I disagree, I tend to do something which irritates him, which is to get all emotional and then flounce out of the room without giving him the change to talk it out with me; he has many times prevented me from leaving the room (no violence, just holding me by the shoulders or blocking the door) and it has never felt hostage-y or scary or violent or…anything. I’ve never done it to him, but then again, he’s not prone to hysterical flouncing. It wouldn’t occur to me that to a man it would feel like being taken hostage.

sunshinemary: “I’m surprised that everyone seems to agree that she was holding him hostage; I see two tipsy people and a woman who really, really didn’t get the dynamic that had happened. She most definitely was not the victim of domestic violence, assuredly. But I see someone here who is culturally brainwashed and ignorant, not necessarily someone who had the full scope of evil female intentions.”

dalrock: “Unfortunately from a practical perspective he had no legal right to leave that room until she decided to permit it, no matter how much she badgered him, no matter how many times he asked her to be allowed to leave. His only option is to let her do with him as she wishes until she grows tired of the power play. And this is the crux of the issue. She knows this. All wives know this. A wife who will use this knowledge and not repent can’t be trusted. It is a profound betrayal.”

SSM: And this is the point. She WAS holding him hostage. Why? Because he KNOWS that if he uses force to remove himself, he is at extreme risk of a false claim of DV which will destroy his life. She also knows this. And she knows that he knows this. She knew exactly what she was doing: using the threat of legal action and involving police and criminal law to control her husband, physically restrain him, and prevent him from moving at will. She cannot restrain him physically, so she uses the implied threat of the cops being a phone call away, and the automatic credibility her gender gives her with the justice system, to restrain him.

He is in a no-win situation. It only takes him a second or two to think this through. If he stays there, he has no choice but to submit. And he has to stay there. His only other option is to use his superior size and strength to force his way out. He is clearly physically capable of doing this. But both of them know that if he does, no one will ever believe that he did so out of pure self-defense. No one will ever believe that she terrorized him into staying in one place. No, he knows what story will be told: they were fighting and yelling. She wanted to talk it out. He was drinking. He got pissed off. He brutally grabbed her, held her against her will, and tossed her across the room. She has grip marks on her wrists which will be photographed for the court file. She has a mark on her side where she hit the bed. Her tear stained face will be photographed for the file, as will her arms and torso. She will tearfully tell the police that she just wanted to talk, but he grabbed her and threw her.

In a situation where things between a man and a woman escalate to physical violence, and there is no video tape, it’s “he said, she said”. She knows the cops will not believe she terrorized him. She knows the cops will believe the big, bad, dolttish, slightly intoxicated husband was brutalizing the small, meek, innocent wife.

Dalrock is correct on this. Women are MUCH more perceptive of power balances in relationships than men are and she was attempting to control the situation by controlling him. She knew what she was doing. I’ve heard women admit to controlling men in ways that should have made them fall over dead from lack of humanity, but they kept on smiling. Look at it from his perspective. She has everything on her side to keep him there and he showed extreme restraint in getting her out of the way under these circumstances. I don’t condone violence, but she was using the female version of it on him at that exact moment and he was not supposed to do anything back. That’s like him beating her stupid and her not supposed to be able to defend herself.

Hmm, ok, that’s a good point that I hadn’t fully considered. He wasn’t so much physically a hostage as he was legally a hostage, which makes more sense.

It is both.

As to where you may have misrepresented what she wrote – she wrote, “There’s no reason to leave” and you wrote, “That won’t be necessary.” I don’t know what she really said, of course, but what you wrote seems like it would sound a lot more threatening that what she claims she said. I could see the first comment not being totally unreasonable if she hadn’t been standing in front of the door.

Context is everything. She had him cornered, knew he was extremely agitated, and refused to allow him to leave.

Someone help me out here. Is the problem that she was blocking his way and he can’t legally move her without her shrieking abuse? I really do want to understand, but (being female) I tend to run everything through the personal narrative filter to understand it.

She has him entirely helpless, and she won’t disengage from the fight. He is using all of his restraint to hold back his fight instinct, and she is insisting on cornering him to rule out his flight instinct. It is a cruel game. He has no recourse other than to not be in the same home with her ever again. This is why her repentance is so crucial.

When my husband and I disagree, I tend to do something which irritates him, which is to get all emotional and then flounce out of the room without giving him the change to talk it out with me; he has many times prevented me from leaving the room (no violence, just holding me by the shoulders or blocking the door) and it has never felt hostage-y or scary or violent or…anything. I’ve never done it to him, but then again, he’s not prone to hysterical flouncing. It wouldn’t occur to me that to a man it would feel like being taken hostage.

Men’s and women’s psychology are different, and this comes out most when under exactly these kinds of stress. Even so, if you were to fight yourself free from your husband, there isn’t a court in the land which would go after you as an abuser (but they absolutely would him). Your husband is taking a huge personal risk in order to lovingly lead you in a time he thinks you need to feel his strength. Should you ever feel this isn’t the case, he goes to jail. This is nothing like what she did to her husband. She took no risk, and when he fought free went complaining that she is the victim, asking is this is a sign he is an abuser.

Sunshinemarry:Wow, Dalrock, I just read what you wrote as a comment on the first story at Yahoo Answers. Do you really think this incident would justify the man immediately divorcing the woman, despite the existence of three children? She clearly misunderstood the dynamic and is trolling for sympathy, no doubt. But if he were standing in front of you, would you seriously advise him to immediately file for divorce?

Putting yourself in the woman’s shoes? Not happy with that happening to you… I mean the woman… in any situation?

Witness why every threatpoint a man has is being removed. Because Sunshinemarry, and any woman, is scared that it just might happen to her. Oh sure, she would never CLOSE THE DOOR on her husband, STAND IN FRONT OF IT ANGRILY, and then say “YOU DON’T NEED TO LEAVE”, but heh, it might, you know, somehow happen, and she doesn’t want to be divorced if it does!

So that threatpoint needs to be removed! Like every other male threatpoint! Cause it just might happen to her!

UnicornHunter wrote:
Where I live, blocking someone from leaving is DV.

Only if a man blocks a woman from leaving, most likely. The reverse? Generally not.
And don’t tell me this woman isn’t aware of that…AWALT.

Wait, what?? That’s crazy. Is that true? I can hardly believe that. Why?

Of course it is crazy. And yes it is true. See the response to the man who defended himself from the woman with the scalding pan. See the description of “abuse” from the page the other answerer referenced. If the facts are overwhelmingly irrefutable, the man might actually win. But the risk is all his. How can you seriously not know this? Women understand this implicitly. Certainly the woman asking the question did. If she thought she would be judged for falsely imprisoning her husband she wouldn’t have framed her question the way she did. She knew she would get a free pass on this.

I wish this would stir women’s heart, but unfortunately my own mother told me (paraphrase): ‘Men have had it good for a long time, and now it’s our turn. You will just have to make due.’ Don’t count on mother’s loving their sons to stop any of this. We have relied on women’s innate goodness and this is where it took us.

“He is using all of his restraint to hold back his fight instinct, and she is insisting on cornering him to rule out his flight instinct. It is a cruel game.”

He MUST restrain himself from using his fight instinct. If he does not, and he uses force on his wife, over whom he has a clear physical advantage, he knows his life is over. He knows she can and will destroy him.

He CANNOT use his flight instinct because she is blocking the door. The only way he can flee is to fight his way past her.

It is a raw power play. She has him entirely helpless. It is being done purely by design. Both of them know it.

@JoJ, Women’s innate goodness, lord she was sold out. No one is innately good, period. A mother who sells her sons out for the good of the sisterhood has simply taught her sons that they are worthless to her. That usually carries into society high consequences. I wish I could say we have seen the worst of it, but all we have to do is look at all the GREAT matriarchies around the world to know different.

Oops. She was actually thinking about something her husband does. As has already been said, it is not the same thing. Because her husband doesn’t have the loaded gun of the government on his side, obviously. Also, a woman engaging in shunning(refusing to look at someone, refusing to talk to them, disappearing on them) is so totally not a man or woman in flight or fight.

She is simply engaging in a typical female power play, and he is dealing with it. Female power play != Fight-or-Flight situation. Even dogs and cats will deliberately look away from you if you make them mad. And he does not have the loaded gun of the government backing him up either.

Above was about sunshinemarry comment and my response.
[D: I think SSM is sincerely trying to understand our perspective here. At the very least, she is helping us make our case by asking the questions she is asking.]

That was probably 8 years ago. Long before I learned game, and also before the recession hit. I don’t know her current stance on things, but from how she treats my dad, I doubt it’s changed. That man is a prisoner in his own house. Game has changed the dynamic I have in that relationship drastically. Fights were very common when those words were spoken and are now like an endangered species. She is well aware that I not only can but will walk away from her on a moments notice if she so much as thinks of placing me in one of her little mental jui-jitsu holds. I lost a lot of respect for her as a person back during that time and she still hasn’t earned it all back yet.

@VD
Haha, agreed. Having trained 11 years Wing Chun and a few in jiu jitsu and kick box, I have an enormous respect for MMA fighers and thai boxers. That said, without the heavy gloves, the testicles protector and rules prohibiting finger/palm attacks on the face, soft styles fighers (with some routine) suddenly and without notice become hard styles fighters again. At competitions, like K1 and even UFC, thai boxers have the advantage with that almost uncounterable horizontal kick. Outside those competition rules, however, they easily fall victim of low groin kicks (stopping them while starting a horizontal kick), and their punches open themselves for vicious attacks on the eyes/neckpipe. At least thats * my * preferred method… :-)

@JoJ,“I wish this would stir women’s heart, but unfortunately my own mother told me (paraphrase): ‘Men have had it good for a long time, and now it’s our turn. You will just have to make due.’ Don’t count on mother’s loving their sons to stop any of this. We have relied on women’s innate goodness and this is where it took us.”
Yep. Sounds about right. My own mother suggested I marry a single mom and take care of her kids. Eff that.
Just this past weekend she told me that I wasn’t loving (as if she knows what the fuck that means) and that is why I am currently unable to find a suitable woman to marry.

SSM: ” When my husband and I disagree, I tend to do something which irritates him, which is to get all emotional and then flounce out of the room without giving him the change to talk it out with me; he has many times prevented me from leaving the room (no violence, just holding me by the shoulders or blocking the door) and it has never felt hostage-y or scary or violent or…anything. I’ve never done it to him, but then again, he’s not prone to hysterical flouncing. It wouldn’t occur to me that to a man it would feel like being taken hostage.”

SSM, I would suggest that this is because you know you are safe with your husband. Look at the dynamic you portray, you are emotional and seem somewhat out of control, he is trying to be rational and is gently, but forcefully, trying to help you regain your self-control and reassert your reason over your emotions. If I am assuming a bit much, I can tell you that this dynamic plays out almost daily between myself and my pre-teen daughter, who is probably a lot more explosive than you.

Look at the reverse situation, of you trying to block him. The dynamics will likely be the same, you being emotional and him rational, with you blocking him because he has concluded it is best for both of you that he leave the room. You being emotional and out of control (or in less control of yourself) and acting based on that are obviously much more unpredictable, hence dangerous, in this situation than he was in the reverse. And the danger might be to you, i.e. he will be worrying about how he might react to something you might do and how that might affect you.

I have great respect for you from your many comments and blog, but might I humbly suggest your solipsism is showing.

What I hate the most about the topic of domestic violence is the totally false perceptions feminists invented about history. Most girls today are taught that in earlier centuries, every household was a place of terror, where husbands were beating and brutalizing wives as regularly as shaving their beard, and women were hapless victims.
That is totally untrue, especially in European Middle ages and Victorian times, about which feminists write the most. Of course there were horrific crimes in some cases, but usually, as soon as the first bruises could be seen on a woman, the local priest had a serious talk with the husband. (Imagine someone openly accused by a priest, on a sunday sermon, in front of everyone! Was very shameful and easily a social death.) Not to mention the relatives (with a fertility rate of 5+, there were quite a few), who intervened immediately.

From the Knoxville, TN Police Department http://www.cityofknoxville.org/kpd/dvu_signs.asp
“Any Force During an Argument: This may involve an abusive partner holding you down, physically restraining you from leaving the room, any pushing or shoving. He may hold you against the wall and say, “You are going to listen to me.”
And: “Intimidating by blocking exit, making threatening gestures”
So yes, blocking an exit would be considered domestic violence, yet if you read this website (once again, an official police resource) you will find that the abuser is ALWAYS referred to as “he”. Be forewarned.

Also from the City of Knoxville PD (TN) http://www.cityofknoxville.org/kpd/dvu_test.asp
How to know if you are in an abusive relationship:
“8. Male Privilege
Treating you like a servant
Making all the big decisions, acting like the “master of the castle”
Being the one to define men’s and women’s roles ”
Here we have it: The police will identify a man as an abuser if he acts like his home is his castle.
Protect and serve indeed.

SSM, I would suggest that this is because you know you are safe with your husband. Look at the dynamic you portray, you are emotional and seem somewhat out of control, he is trying to be rational and is gently, but forcefully, trying to help you regain your self-control and reassert your reason over your emotions.

I agree with this. In this situation, it is calming and that is its purpose.

Not at all the same thing as goading someone into a fight like this woman was clearly doing with her husband by blocking his exit and verbally poking him when he was already agitated. The loving thing to do in this situation would be to back off. You don’t poke at a cornered animal, which is how it feels when someone is doing that (been there).

I like Joseph of Jackson’s idea of going out the window. Perfect really, assuming you don’t live on the 8th floor.

Is his wife abusive? Is tropical storm Sandy a hurricane? Is it class four?

All of these are meaningless questions asked by people who are sheltered enough to not have a connection to real life. They live in pristine, plastic bubbles, insulated and isolated from the consequences of their own actions.

Is the wife abusive? To answer this question is to give it validity, of which it has none. The consequences of her action in a non-feminine superior culture (allowed only through the brutal subjugation of men, by other men) would be immediate reprisal of a level sufficient to make certain that the event was never repeated. To answer violence with words is to invite it.

The only way to defeat a despot is to be more forcefully despotic. All women are despots.

While I’m at it with the documentation, the following is from a blog by an extremely legitimate female self-defense instructor in Austin, TX: I know it’s lengthy, but it is very much on topic and important to understand, so please bear with the re-post. Original link is here: http://txkrav.blogspot.com/2011/11/mean-girls.html

” Mean Girls
This has happened to me twice… I’m chatting with a girl I just met & she asks what I do for a living. Once I tell her I’m a Krav Maga instructor she gets all tickled and says she ought to train, and tells me what she does for fun: she goes down to Sixth Street on the weekend and picks fights with guys. This is to say, she says or does something so irritating or offensive to a male stranger that he tells her to shut up, go away, etc. So she punches him in the face as hard as she can.
Since a guy will get hauled off to jail if he punches a female, he feels like he can’t retaliate (or, in this case, defend himself) so she “won”. And these girls were pretty proud of themselves when they told me this & expected me to applaud them. It was everything I could do to restrain myself from removing their teeth.
The truth is, I was so shocked and offended by them that I really had no idea what to say. So I got very quiet and still and said that if they act like that they can’t train at our school.
Really, I chickened out. I tend to say cruel things when I’m really angry and I want to avoid that, plus I was so stunned by their behavior that my brain shut down. Saying Fit and Fearless won’t accept students who bully and attack others its true, but it was still a cop out on my part. Here’s what I’d like to say:
*If you punch people in the face for fun you deserve to get punched back. I don’t care who you are. There are people who engage in this behavior because they are with a friend who trains in martial arts & the puncher assumes they’re immune from retaliation because their friend will “take care of it”. If I see someone acting like this I will not help them. After they get their ass beat, I’ll tell their mother on them.
*Young lady, the man who is not punching you back is not refraining because you’re so tough. He is using self control because he doesn’t want to go to jail and/or he’s been taught not to hit a female under any circumstances. The fact that you’re exploiting this makes you a bad person. I will now refer you to the previous point.
*You’re making me look bad. Many people assume that women who engage in the “hard” martial arts are crazy or mean angry bitches with a chip on their shoulder. I make a point to dress very girly and be nice and friendly so that people understand that normal girls like to train, too. Your behavior is reinforcing the stereotype of the angry-nutjob fighter girl.
*You are preventing other women from training. Yes, this is a continuation of the previous point, but the last one was mostly about me. This is about every female who has been told there’s something wrong with her because she wants to train. It’s for every female who has hidden or downplayed the fact that she trains because she doesn’t want to be judged as being damaged or warped or hating men. Getting women to walk in the door of a martial arts studio and accept that it’s okay to hit and be hit on the mat is difficult enough. If other females believe that it’s okay for normal women to step on the mat and go hard they’re more likely to give it a try. The fact that you assault people then brag about it makes sane women want to avoid anything that even resembles you.
*I’m not quite sure how to put this, but I also believe that a person who has been subjected to an injustice, as the men you assault have been, tends to adopt a “never again” attitude. I don’t blame them. What this means to me is that he is more likely to strike a woman in the future, and it will probably not be a woman who is as prepared for violence as you seem to fantasize you are. Violence against women is endemic in the human race. I suspect you may be cementing the belief batterers hold that we all have it coming.
I think that about covers it. If anyone can tell me how to say that in under one minute and without resorting to the swear words that are so dear to me, I’m taking suggestions.

Just like teenagers. I think women are morally like teenagers, never fully developing, with a rare exception. A man–a society run by ment–needs to be constraining them. They are now let loose, and Women Let Loose == All Hell Breaking Loose.

@sunshinemary – I would. I have been there. What she is demonstrating is that she has lost respect for him, and is now vying for control over him. In the modern culture, there is no one that will dial her back into a position that is fit for marriage to this particular man for sure, maybe not any man. The kids will be affected less by a swift a decisive move by him than a drawn out power struggle in the marriage that ends in divorce when they are older. Been there and done that.

Calling the cops is the nuclear option. Even if the nuke fails (e.g., the cops leave with nobody getting arrested), know that the caller has crossed a line that can’t be crossed back. You simply should not introduce the power of the state into a marriage unless you are intent on destroying same.

Well, I guess that it is time to tel a bit of a truth that most men don’t talk about.That’s the ancient man living inside us all. Let’s call him, Ug. Ug lives in a simple world. He knows about fire. His tools are simple – a stout club and a piece of a sharp bone or horn from an animal. Maybe a hunk of volcanic glass. The club is used to bash things that need bashing. The sharp thing is used to cut things that need cutting. For example, Ug and his brothers corner a deer, or a wild sheep. They bash it with club until it is dead, then cut it to pieces to eat. Maybe the get some fire and cook it, maybe not.

Ug’s social relations are simple as well. There are three categories: Friend, Stranger, Enemy. People and some animals can be any of the above, but not more than one. Stranger can become Friend, and vice versa. But Enemy is Enemy. Some human or animal shifts from Stranger to Enemy, or Friend to Enemy, that’s it. All done for them.

Because Ug lives in a world of no margin for error. When he goes to hunt he has to know his hunting partners have his back, without question. If he is hurt, either his hunting comrades bring him back to the camp, or he will die. Friend must be trusted without question. Stranger is viewed with suspicion, but could be useful to trade with. Maybe even become Friend…

Enemy is that which can cause harm to Ug. And any harm – an infection, a broken bone, stolen food – can lead to death. Maybe Enemy is a predator, like a canine or a feline, or a poison reptile. Maybe Enemy is another man who stole food, or attacked Ug. Enemy cannot be tolerated. Either Ug has to get so far away from Enemy that Enemy cannot do anything to Ug, or Ug must fight. This is where the fight or flight response leads. It leads us down into the sub-sub-sub-basement, behind a locked, solid steel door, to the dark room where Ug sleeps.

When Ug is confronted by Enemy and he can not flee, he will fight. The fight will end either with Ug’s death, or with Enemy going away. “Going away” means either Enemy flees faster than Ug can pursue, or Enemy is pounded with a club until Ug is satisfied the threat is gone. Enemy may stop fighting, but Ug doesn’t care. Enemy may stop moving, but Ug is not fooled – he is the grandson of Ug the Ancient, who once saw an Enemy that stopped moving, then started the fight again. Once Ug starts his fight, either Enemy kills him, or escapes, or Ug reduces Enemy to an unrecognizable pile of red stuff on the ground. There is no “time out” with Ug. There is no “surrender” to Ug. Ug is the Terminator of his time; he has no pity, he can’t be reasoned with, he can’t be apologized to, he can’t be scared away, and he will make his Enemy “go away” by any means necessary. Once he starts the fight, it continues to one of the three ends above. The Viking “berserks” were likely a manifestation of Ug, just to pick one example

At the same time, Ug has strong mental prohibitions against declaring a woman to be Enemy. It should be obvious that back tens of thousands of years ago (apologies to 6-day Creationists), women were in short supply, as were men, and a man who was in the habit of killing his woman over anything short of self defense against murder would not have progeny in large numbers to pass his genes down to us. The man who could control his rage, he’s more likely to pass his genes down to us. Even if by controlling his rage, he winds up dying in some way, he likely left at least one child behind.

Modern men have more ways of making Enemy “go away”. . The duelling codes of the 19th, 18th and earlier centuries provided ample opportunity to redress a greivance without bloodshed. We have evolved a multitude of ways to deal with tolerating the intolerable. We have the option of avoiding our Enemy. We can “not see” Enemy, for example. Cross the street, or stop going to certain places, in order to avoid someone who has caused us harm, insulted us, etc. There can be elaborate ways to “not see” someone that you have to see every stinking day. We see this in higher population density places, such as Japan. Of course, we also tend to see higher suicide rates in those places, as well. That is another way to make Enemy “go away”….

Modern men are trained to control themselves, for the most part. And we have a mix of nature and nurture that urges us strongly to protect women, and avoid harming them. But make no mistake, buried deeply in every man is Ug, and rattling the iron door that locks him in just for the fun of it can have some very profound results. At the very least, the fight-or-flight response generates physiological changes – increased heart rate, flow of adrenaline to prepare muscles for great effort, pupil dilation in order to see Enemy better, spike in cortisol, and so forth – and to generate this biological response, but provide no outlet via exertion for it, creates real, harmful, stress in the man. The cortisol alone will cause some damage to the circulatory system, over time. Perhaps one reason men do not live as long as women, on average, is the long term effects of stress generated by fight-or-flight that goes unused for its intended purpose?

“Picking a fight” is not just a figure of speech. Don’t rattle Ug’s cage capriciously. He’s buried down , deeply down there, for a purpose, and that purpose is not anyone’s entertainment.

It is hard for me to take this seriously. It is illuminating to imagine it reversed. Wrist grabbing is a defensive act. My brother was arrested in his 20’s for grabbing his girlfriends arms when she was drunk in public and thrashing him, so that shows the unfairness. The problem to me isn’t too much violence, but a lack of exerience and overreaction. What bothers me is that psychological abuse, can be 1000 times more threatening, and intractable, and no visible bruises. I’ll take any number of bruises as long as it is a fair fight that can expose what has been hidden and denied.

I like Joseph of Jackson’s idea of going out the window. Perfect really, assuming you don’t live on the 8th floor.

You like this perfect solution? It’s fine for a woman, but I’ll be damned if I’m going to go out the window of my own home. A wife should know that.

I disagree a little with Dalrock’s reading of the situation. I doubt it crossed that woman’s mind to call the cops if he got physical, or that he’d even get physical. It’s likely that she’s lived a life completely devoid of violence. She’s not calculating that her state-granted powers will ultimately save her; she’s simply oblivious because she’s never experienced violence except in a Lifetime Channel movie event. The man–who showed some serious restraint–must confuse her infantilized mind. “TV-gods say me hurt is bad. Man hurt me. He bad to me!”

Nevertheless, it’s a good idea to assume she’s a manipulative shrew, because if it’s true the consequences are brutal. Even if she’s not purposefully manipulative in the beginning, some other woman will be eager to whisper her some demonic counsel.

It’s all perverted. There’s a complete transgender role-reversal that results in power-crazed women, and (necessarily) weaselly men. Men are not equipped to deal with the self-loathing that would accompany such skulking as a retreat from a wife out the window. Women aren’t equipped to reckon the implications and consequences of their ill-gotten powers.

I hope you haven’t been run off the page. It was never my intention to hammer you with all those posts, but my blood was pumping and there was nothing for it. The point is that good women like yourself honestly believe that the laws that protect you are equally in place for men who face the same. They are not.

I will give you a real life example. My friend (I’ll call him Jack) has been married to the same woman 3 times. He is a die-hard christian beta who believes that she is irreplaceable and his soul mate. She will periodically leave and not call them for months on end while she goes on little adventures. They are currently divorced again. They have 2 boys who are roughly 13 and 16. She has been diagnosed with bi-polar disorder. In on instance, she attacked Jack with a knife from the kitchen and her oldest son had to restrain her. Thankfully no one was hurt, but the youngest son called the police because mom had gone nuts again. The police showed up, took statements from everyone and proceeded to take Jack to jail in handcuffs. The only reason they didn’t take him in is the boys pleaded with the officers not to leave them alone in the house with their mom. They officers left Jack there and the mom was never even given a warning. Keep in mind, this story was told to me at church by the oldest son himself who was crying in Sunday school over having to go back home that night.

Jack is a good man and a hard worker. He just believes in fairy tales. This last round was the worst as she attempted to knock the window to his car in with her elbow when he came over to her place to pick the boys up. She called the police on him and he was arrested at his place of work the next day around lunch. He lost his job right there without any recourse. He was taken to the local detention center for holding until his court date. He was labeled as a “violent” offender and placed in jail with guys who were murderers and gang members. Living off of 1400 calories a day which is the minimum amount allowable by law in my state. He was surviving off of very little and having to watch his back every day. His bail was set at an outlandish level because the judge is a very religious man who goes to our church and doesn’t approve of attacking women. He finally gets his court hearing 8 weeks later and gets out. He hasn’t heard from anyone because they won’t let anyone but immediate family speak to him and she has taken off with the kids of whom she now has custody. He stays on my couch for 3 days while he tries to come up with a game plan. The church wants to offer him anger management (he doesn’t have a problem with anger, trust my judgement on this). I am finally forced to tell him to leave. Not because he was a bad guy or had done something illegal, but because he was honestly considering forgiving her and taking her back. I’m all about the forgiveness, but I can’t let her hurt the children who called me when their dad got out and were now staying with a couple I knew from church. I told him that until he could agree that she was never to be allowed in the home permanently with the children again, he wasn’t fit to be a parent. I have spoken with him many times since this and has actually thanked me for it.

Long story short. Good guy + crazy girl = man go to jail and loose everything. It’s not the worst personal story I have either. I wish I could convey all the missing pieces of the story, but there isn’t room on this whole blog. Suffice it to say, when I hear a man is accused of DV, my first response is “What did she do to him?”

I wonder if women appreciate the dynamic they are setting themselves up for here.

It would seem with the way DV laws are going the appropriate response to a threat to call them police is to immediately kill the woman and flee the country.

I’m not suggesting anybody actually do this, but it would seem to be a disturbingly rational course of action. It looks you will be treated as if you more of less did this anyway by the legal system and have your life destroyed with no recourse.

The saner and non-murderous course of action would be to walk away as soon as such behavior is even threatened. “Walk away” in the sense of “next her” rather than “walk away and let things calm down”. If it means walking away from a marriage so be it. There is no way to step back from pushing that button in a relationship and a woman who has indicated she will do it once cant ever be trusted not to do it again.

hmm… I’m thinking about sunshinemary’s questions and the whole scenario described. It occurs to me that for men, leaving a potentially explosive situation is a means of de-escalating the conflict. The guy in the OP wants to leave because he’s angry and he wants to de-escalate the conflict by getting away. For him to stay would be an escalation of the conflict. But for a lot of women, (and here is where I think SSM’s confusion comes in) staying to talk is the way to de-escalate things. So for a woman who ‘flounces away’ to use her words, the actual desire is that the man would pursue her in order to re-engage. She would be more hurt if he didn’t pursue and didn’t engage in some way. It sounds like her husband is choosing (riskily and wisely) to remain engaged with her, which makes her alternately feel both safe & loved.

But in the conflict situation above, the role is reversed as Dalrock noted. The man wants to get away and the woman wants him to stay. She may not be intentional in her provocation because she probably believes that the man just needs to talk things out so the situation can be defused. BUT because law & custom are on her side, it is an incredibly bad situation for the man. He cannot de-escalate the conflict by any means other than submitting to the woman’s control. She has all the power in the situation and even if she wants to repair the relationship it is unlikely to be repairable because she has demonstrated a willingness to so demean her husband and put him under her thumb. She may not recognize this consciously, but she is treating him like a woman and consequently will lose all respect for him rather quickly.

The whole thing comes down to dominance. A man putting another man in this same situation is establishing dominance and there can only be one dominant male in that relationship. A woman doing that to a man is basically saying, ‘you’re my bitch’

Not only is going out the window akin to surrender, but its also amunition to label you nuts. Odds are if she is truly set on stopping you, she will pull on you or try to stop you from opening the window. The window will get broken or she will get tossed back in the effort, and now there is evidence of some sort of a struggle. People don’t go out of windows when things aren’t hostile right. The man must have been trying to sneak out without being seen, or some other nonsense. Doing something out of the ordinary in those circumstances will just make you more suspect and likely to get hurt by the results later. The man did the right thing. He removed her from his path with enough force to enforce his will, and as little force as needed so not to hurt someone who he probably cares about. There was no winning once she made that power play. The only question is how far she would carry it.

This is a worst case scenario where she knows full well what she is doing. In my mind, I’m imagining myself with a chainsaw literally dismantling the house around her as she stands there dazed and confused. It’s more theatrical on my part than anything else, but that is the level I’m prepared to go to prevent her from controlling me. It’s not a perfect solution, but we also aren’t dealing with a perfect world. If my choices were sit and let me be controlled by my wife, move her out of the way and be sent to jail, or symbolically destroy the marriage the same way she is? I’ll take option C until it is so painfully obvious in her mind that she wakes up at night from a cold draft coming in from a hole in the wall that isn’t there.

It’s my house, I’ll burn it to the F$%$^@# ground before I let it turn into my prison.

You like this perfect solution? It’s fine for a woman, but I’ll be damned if I’m going to go out the window of my own home. A wife should know that.

Perhaps I overstated it as the perfect solution, since there really is no perfect solution once faced with this situation. A man shouldn’t have to flee his own home, you’re right about that, and a wife should [operative word] know that but all too often doesn’t or is wholly defiant since she has tax funded back-up. The problem is, with the law against him, this may be a pragmatic response to an impossible situation.

Like man self defense scenarios, it is better to leave a dead assailant than a live one to testify that you didn’t follow the letter of the law. Sadly the harsher DV laws will lead to more women being killed as they assault their husbands who rationalize their life is ruined anyway. Once a sharp lawyer figures out that without the witness, he gets to spin the story, then it becomes the defacto defense for men. Oppression always leads to violence and lawlessness.

I have a somewhat different view of female capacity for violence by women against those big; strong men.

My late ex brother-in-law worked in corrections for many years, in fact most of his adult life. I used to enjoy hearing his experiences in prison.

Once, I asked him how many average sized male guards it took to subdue one average sized prisoner who went berserk. Not everyone has ever seen a person go truly berserk and have no idea just how strong a berserk person can be. I did it twice, and it scared me half to death. So, I do have an idea what may happen.

He responded that if no weapons were involved it usually took six average sized male guards to subdue an average sized man who was berserk, with no one at all getting hurt. That was interesting to me, because it took eight to subdue me the first time it happened. (In a military setting.) And, I am definitely average sized.

Then, I asked him how many average sized male guards it would take to subdue an average sized female prisoner who went berserk. He repeated if no weapons were involved it would take FOUR average sized male guards to subdue an average sized, berserk female, with no one getting hurt.

He said in both cases, with any weapons at all involved, no amount of guards could subdue either man or woman without someone getting hurt.

I have personal reasons to think he knew what he was talking about.

So, when a bunch of Real Men(tm) spout off about how no tiny woman like that can hurt a Real Man(tm) I realize I am in the presence of stupidity.

Just before I retired in 1997, a woman in a nearby town stabbed her football coach to death. This Real Man(tm), when he saw her coming at him with a knife laughed uproariously, but he didn’t laugh long.

Her lawyer plead her not guilty because it was a response to his continued violence and abuse. Her own daughter testified her dad had never hit her mom. The wife was always the one hitting and kicking and throwing things.

I read later that most men, when they see their wife coming at them with a knife, also laugh uproariously, and they also do not laugh long.

So, when a bunch of Real Men(tm) spout off about how no tiny woman like that can hurt a Real Man(tm) I realize I am in the presence of stupidity.

If you cave someone’s head in with a hammer they stop being a problem. The prison guards are not going to do that though.

You are confusing a situation where one side must follow the polite rules and not hurt the prisoner while the other side may act as they please, and a differing situation where there are no such rules.

@ JoJ – No, I wasn’t run off. I just felt I didn’t know what I was talking about, so I decided I should stop talking. I read your comments and appreciated them.

@ tbc – YES! THANK you for clarifying my confusion, I think you’ve exactly described it. I was thinking about it all the way to pick up my kids from school and concluded that when I have my little flouncy moment (btw this is not an everyday occurrence or anything), if my husband just let me go without intervening, I’d probably immediately assume he hated me and didn’t love me and I’d cry until I dehydrated and died. I swear it’s not fitness-testing either; it’s emotional over-load. I never thought about the fact that he’s taking a risk by putting his hands on me because it never occurred to me that this could be construed as domestic violence. It feels like love, not violence. I see now, though, that it isn’t similar to the situation between the man and woman in the OP. I’m slow on the uptake sometimes, but I usually get it eventually.

I think these problems would go away if the State would butt out. Relations between the sexes could normalize if the feminist State would stop imposing these power imbalances. We wouldn’t really even need to “understand” each other; we could just accept that this is how the opposite sex is and adjust our own behavior accordingly. What a shame we can’t.

I’m not surprised by those accounts of prison guards and subduing a berserk person. I’m guessing that the operative phrase is “with no one at all getting hurt” because the berserk person needs to be restrained and they usually are intent on hurting those trying to restrain them. Weapons being involved would be a game changer and this is hardly surprising. After all, with weapons involved the guards (who just want to go home at the end of the day) the berserker can do enormous harm very quickly. I don’t think people appreciate the reality of these situations in the real world.

We had something simiilar in Australia a number of years ago with a mental patient off his medication (IIRC) threatening police with a knife and they shot him, and there was an outcry about over reaction etc, but trying to subdue a crazy person with a knife is extremely dangerous and I think the police reacted appropriately.

There was a more recent case in Australia where 11 officers were trying to subdue someone and stop them walking into traffic and he had a bad reaction to being tasered and died. One dumbass I work with thought it was unreasonable until I noted, _11_ police officers were having difficulty restraining him.

SSM said: “when I have my little flouncy moment (btw this is not an everyday occurrence or anything), if my husband just let me go without intervening, I’d probably immediately assume he hated me and didn’t love me and I’d cry until I dehydrated and died. I swear it’s not fitness-testing either; it’s emotional over-load. I never thought about the fact that he’s taking a risk by putting his hands on me because it never occurred to me that this could be construed as domestic violence. It feels like love, not violence.”

I think in a normal, generally emotionally healthy woman this is true. I do the “flouncy thing”, too, and when (rarely) my husband has followed me to try and calm me or talk sense into me, it has felt like love. It is usually when I am exhausted physically or under a lot of stress or hormonal influence.

IF, however, it was done in a hyper-controlling way, I could see how it would be construed as violent. I watched my father (and mother) abuse each other severely for almost seventeen years growing up, and it used to bother me extremely to be “cornered” in any way – but I would NEVER corner anyone else, particularly my husband. IMHO, a WOMAN who “corners” her husband is egging him on and I agree with others that she is behaving as the ultimate in controlling b****. It is not a recoverable scenario – everyone loses. Permanently.

Question, since we are discussing men/women and rational/emotional behavior:

My husband and I had a couple whom we were friends with at one time, and they were going through an unprecedented period of trouble in their marriage. He was drinking regularly, and she occasionally drank with him – it was never a good combo. Anyway, he was unemployed and stressed, and he perceived her disgust/disrespect toward him for not spending more effort trying to find a job, and sitting around drinking all day while she worked while caring for a small child. They were both stressed. So, he got rather tipsy and began to goad her, saying something like, “I know you hate me, go ahead, hit me! Go ahead! I dare you! Hit me! You WANT to!”, etc. while on the front porch. She WAS disgusted with him, but she hadn’t had anything to drink and she wanted to get away from him. He kept yelling and yelling for her to hit him and so she finally slapped him with an open hand across his face. He promptly left the porch, walked inside, called the police and told them she had assaulted him.

Long story short, the police came, told wife to stay with neighbors with child (to let husband decompress and sober up) and told wife to go to battered women’s shelter if “his abusive behavior” continued.

Here we have, IMHO, the reverse of what the woman did to the man by cornering him, and again, the man is called abusive.

Thoughts? I don’t want to derail, I am genuinely interested in men’s (and women’s) thoughts on this type of scenario where the woman legally should have been arrested, but the man literally goaded her into violence.

I disagree a little with Dalrock’s reading of the situation. I doubt it crossed that woman’s mind to call the cops if he got physical, or that he’d even get physical. It’s likely that she’s lived a life completely devoid of violence. She’s not calculating that her state-granted powers will ultimately save her; she’s simply oblivious because she’s never experienced violence except in a Lifetime Channel movie event.

Agreed. I’d guess that in 99% of the situations (not counting the ones where the woman actually craves physical abuse because of some mental problem) the woman is confident that the man won’t hurt her. She does know in the back of her mind that if he hurts her the state will destroy him for her, but she’s not expecting that. She’s expecting him to submit, or at worst to try to move her gently. Either way, she is controlling him and getting off on it, and setting the stage to win the next fight before it starts.

There may be a few non-masochists who are trying to goad the man into violence. But why bother, really? She doesn’t need that to get her way. She already has no-fault divorce, and the default position as primary custodian and receiver of child support, without claiming any abuse. If she wants to improve her chances just to be safe, she can claim emotional abuse or something like shoving that doesn’t show. She doesn’t actually have to risk a painful beating to get what she wants, unless she’s so far gone that her main goal is to put him in prison — where he’ll be less able to provide the cash and prizes.

Thoughts? I don’t want to derail, I am genuinely interested in men’s (and women’s) thoughts on this type of scenario where the woman legally should have been arrested, but the man literally goaded her into violence.

Without getting off topic like most responders to your questions, if a woman hits you, that’s more than enough reason to hit her back. Several times so that she would never repeat it. That is the natural order in the animal kingdom.

However, a keen observer of, let’s say, a pride of lions will notice that it rarely, if ever, comes to that among the cats. Especially between males. The reason is simple, and has been expounded in A Guide For A Young Patriarch. That reason is called the capacity to commit violence. The pride male’s capacity to commit deadly violence is extremely high, and is readily apparent to the rest of the pride as well as other species (such as when a pack of hyenas intruding on a pride kill aren’t overawed by the snarling of lionesses, but just as soon scatter when the top male appears).

Likewise, it is only the most foolhardy wife or girlfriend that would physically challenge a man whose capacity to commit lethal violence were readily observable by her. There are all manner of cues that would signal this capacity, such as physical conditioning, posturing, fighting skills, workout routines and weapons.

The subject beta in your story clearly lacked these cues or (more importantly for establishing dominance) failed to telegraph them to his wife at an early stage in their relationship, so that the wife would have been hesitant to invoke them at her own peril.
Superpower nations have always been acutely aware of this human truth, and are constantly projecting their dominance through “military exercises” and announcements of advanced weapons developments.

About the wife who grabbed the husband by the wrists– man… she must be a strong woman or maybe he’s a tiny guy. We don’t know that he was ‘imprisoning’ just because he happened to be standing in front of the door.

Yes, he should try to reconcile with her and make it clear that that sort of physical aggression will not be tolerated. If a man blocks the door to keep his emotionally nuts wife from going out of the room in anger, that shouldn’t be illegal, either.

Your typical DV center is no place for a man to call. The man in that scenario should definitely refrain from giving his wife the DV number.

“It is like when people figured out that the Earth is not flat, but a sphere….”

You should read this: Myth 3. That Medieval Christians Taught that the Earth was Flat, by Leslie B. Cormack, in Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion, Chap. 3, p. 28. Harvard University Press, 2009.

@TBC“The man wants to get away and the woman wants him to stay. She may not be intentional in her provocation because she probably believes that the man just needs to talk things out so the situation can be defused.”

I think the thing to do in this situation is to put yourself back in control of the situation by flipping the script and letting her know that this behavior isn’t how she gets what she wants.
Tell her “I want to leave right now and I CAN open that door with you standing in front of it or not. So what are you gonna do RIGHT NOW to convince me to stay?!?!?”

If she runs away, ask her “What are you gonna do RIGHT NOW to convince me to let you back in this house?!?!”

When your child throws a temper tantrum, you can incentivise it to come out of the temper tantrum and behave like a normal person or suffer the consequences. This shows mastery over the whole situation.

Sharrukin, I didn’t confuse anything. I would say all the confusion was on your part. Jason understood my point clearly. Not that it was that hard. Little, ole’ women can indeed harm big strong men. Even kill them. Period.

At the end of the day, a guy’s woman can seriously kill or maim the man if she wants to for the simple fact that she has access to him when he sleeps. See QB Steve McNair.

However, in these DV situations unless a firearm is involved, a guy will win out in hand to hand combat even with weapons involved the vast majority of the time. The situation that Anon 70 presents might happen if the guy simly doesn’t act within his ability due to any number of factors. However a guy can disarm a woman with a knife with a good success rate because most woman well middle class and up anyways just don’t handle physical aggression very well. Also their reaction time is terrible and you can see the attack a mile away and move to wrap her up.

These pampered women freeze up like a deer in the headlights in honest to god physical aggression in the works. I’m not talking about screaming and that stuff,I mean when a man is ready to beat her down, these women will go into this isn’t happening mode. Now low class woman, that’s another story entirely, more than capable of slicing your ass up but still at a disadvantage.

I think that one reason that beat up women are seen as the victims regardless of circumstances is that it quite easy to grapple a girl without doing damage. I mean her wrists might bruise and such but you don’t have to punch her. Just clinch or gently double leg her and hold her there until she calms down. I don’t see how strikes are a good option.

Just clinch or gently double leg her and hold her there until she calms down.
I had a boss that did that all the time to his wife. She didn’t kick but would flail with her hands and arms. All he did was grab her by both wrists and hold her until she calmed down. She was a rather uber-emotional woman, as I recall. Of course, they were divorced a long time ago.

Then there was that incident quite a few years ago, reenacted in one of those “true crime” shows (where I saw it). Hubby was a tall, big dude, who could easily beat his woman down with one hand, but never laid a hand on her. So one night they’re arguing and she throws a glass ash tray with a lucky aim and knocks him out cold. While he’s out, she grabs her things and money then sets the double wide on fire. She disappears into the night while he dies due to the smoke. The kid was in the bedroom and heard the argument and saw dad out on the floor, but was too small to do anything accept get out. Too bad for mom – there was now a witness. Years later they find her, remarried. Of to jail she goes, for murder, not DV.

Another story – almost forgot about this one. My aunt, when she was still single in the 1950’s, worked on an assembly line and knew this other woman quite well. She was married and had one pre-teen daughter. She told my aunt that her marriage was in trouble, yadda, yadda.

Well, one day this woman doesn’t show up for work. My aunt doesn’t think anything of it until she opens the evening newspaper. There’s the story. The woman and her husband were arguing while the daughter took refuge in the bedroom. All of a sudden things were DEAD quiet. The daughter was scared and waited a while before venturing out of the bedroom. She found both her parents – they had killed each other with kitchen knives.

To every person here who says this or some form of a man should control or shake or some other half ass defense techniques, i say FUCK OFF!!!!!

Every human being has a right to stand your ground(phrase used on purpose). When another human being is attacking you it is impossible for you to know what their end game is or where they draw the line at not killing you. If anyone makes contact with my body in a way i do not like they need to understand that as a person with exceptional power i will use any amount of it i deem necessary to terminate an attack. PERIOD. FULL STOP. Up to and including homicide. Man or woman. Ironically I’d be more inclined to react violently with a woman cause i know i have overwhelming power and she aint gonna get me as bad as i will her. A man can. So i must take that into account. 26 Yr old male raised in the 1990’s-2000’s school system. Ladies, Does your fish own a bicycle? Didn’t think so.

In my opinion “Ug” is why we are in this mess. Ug is held down by an internal “white knight”, failing that other men will step into repress Ug via their own “white knights” realizing that releasing our collective Ug’s on civilization will cause it’s collapse. Ultimately, I see feminism block the doorway and shit-testing Ug until her tingles are satisfied and the whole of Western Civilization is a blazing ruin. If men can’t find a balance between our white knights and our Ugs I think this is inevitable.

@Joshua,“26 Yr old male raised in the 1990′s-2000′s school system. Ladies, Does your fish own a bicycle? Didn’t think so.”
I think very much think that our generation has the potential to start to put the brakes on this nonsense whole nonsense. I know so many guys my age (28) who are completely disillusioned with the behavior of women and they aren’t even divorced.

I recently posed a similar question to a girl I know, and her answer was always “you just shouldn’t hit a girl”

No matter what scenario I threw at her, ie she had a weapon, she was a she-beast, there was more than one of them, etc, she would affirm her belief. At each scenario I asked her to explain why, explained the right of defense in all situations, and she would pause, and then say “well yeah… but still you shouldn’t hit a girl” like her brain had to reset to orthodoxy after considering contrarian thought for a second or two.

It wasn’t serious and I was just doing it because I like watching her squirm, but it was illuminating nonetheless.

I’m big enough and have enough jiu jitsu and wrestling experience that I won’t ever need to actually hit most chicks no matter what, but you best believe there is around 10% of the female population, the she-beasts and ghetto/white trash bitches that will get hit if one of them ever hits me because holding them down isn’t enough. I’ve been around those chicks before, and they’ll come at you just like a man.

Anonymous age 70
Did the murdering wife in your story get a long sentence? From what I understand women generally get light sentences for all crimes. I didn’t understand something about the story of the Coach who was stabbed. The Coach was married to the woman who killed him right? And their mutual daughter testified to put the mom in jail?

You know, if you took the listings at face value, they’re saying “Being Female and in a Relationship” is to actually be an Abuser. The first listing for “Emotional Abuse” would pretty much convict every female I’ve ever met.

Though, that does point to the way to change the DV laws. Cast it completely as they become “being Female is to be an Abuser” and sell changes that way. It’s not dishonest, it’s just kind of sad to have to be done that way.

Dalrock, I have a few replies to the comments on this topic from various contributors.

1. On BBC Radio 4’s Today programme this morning, it was announced that researchers at Leeds Metropolitan University had confirmed that on average, a man’s pain threshold is higher than a woman’s
2. Police throughout the English-speaking world seem to have swallowed hook line and sinker the idea that the male is always the perpetrator and the woman the victim in cases of intimate partner violence (domestic violence) when empirical evidence shows that there is almost perfect gender symmetry. A review of the work of Professor Murray A Strauss has brought this to light and has led to some of his research students being threatened by feminists that they will prevent them getting jobs in their chosen field because he does not toe the feminist “women are only always the victims” line. A useful starting place is http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ID27B.pdf
3. While I am aware that the plural of anecdote is not data, I know of one situation with a former neighbour. It was his first and her second marriage and she brought with her one son from her first marriage. They had two other boys. Wife started a game of “Let’s You And Him Fight” between her eldest son and her husband. Now lad was about sixteen, tall but weedy. Husband could have blown him into the middle of next week by sneezing in his direction. Lad head-butted husband and split his nose, husband restrained lad and wife phoned for police. Husband spent night in the cells. I do not call that justice.
4. Another person I know was married to a woman who, from his description of the things she did was totally moonbatshit crazy. He suffered many incidents of domestic violence, reported them to the police and in his own words, “The cops just laughed at me.” His job involved the care of vulnerable people, adults with learning difficulties, and she threatened him, amongst other things that if he retaliated or defended himself against her such that she had any marks on her, she would accuse him of domestic violence and until such time as the matter was resolved at law, he would have been suspended from his job, probably without pay. Only when he was “glassed” by her did the police take any notice, and they did not tie this incident to the pattern of assaults that he had reported because they failed to keep a report of the earlier assaults. I had met this woman and she seemed to be perfectly normal.

So, Dalrock, please keep up what you are doing because although it is only raising awareness, and many disparage that, if we can raise the awareness of the average cop then perhaps situations like this last one would have a pattern recorded before the incident goes to court and the defendant will not be able to claim that it is nonsense because its only men who commit the acts of violence and women are only and always the victims.

@UKFred,“1. On BBC Radio 4’s Today programme this morning, it was announced that researchers at Leeds Metropolitan University had confirmed that on average, a man’s pain threshold is higher than a woman’s”

I’ve always thought the pain threshold thing was kind of a red herring. They said women could withstand more pain because they birthed children. Ok.
What does that mean?
Does it mean she can withstand pain and keep doing something else? Because child-birth pretty much incapacitates a woman and before modern medicine, it killed many of them.
Does it mean that a woman perceives an identical source of pain to a lesser extent than a man does? Because I’m pretty sure a man could absorb a much bigger hit than a woman could and keep on fighting. In fact, combat stories verify this over and over again, soldiers wounded multiple times keep on fighting and killing for hours until they bleed out.

@tbc – 10/31/2012 4:22p
“For him to stay would be an escalation of the conflict. But for a lot of women, (and here is where I think SSM’s confusion comes in) staying to talk is the way to de-escalate things. So for a woman who ‘flounces away’ to use her words, the actual desire is that the man would pursue her in order to re-engage. She would be more hurt if he didn’t pursue and didn’t engage in some way.”

Son of a BITCH! THAT’S what’s going on?! I had no freakin’ clue! Thanks for filling in a piece of the puzzle for me. When my wife does that, I had always assumed she was doing it for the same reason I would (ie: to get away and calm down), and I was totally mystified at the hurt feelings in the air afterwards.

Feminist mothers have a lot to answer for. Yeah, women are JUST like men. Treating them the same as men? Winning strategy, right there.

@Buck
Thanks for your kind reply in response to my scathing posts.
I want to you know I wish the best for you and your safety.
It would be safer if you didn’t have to respond as mandated,the old assault laws were sufficient as written.
When the Bradly Amendment was fist introduced police where quite concerned as to being disarmed for life and losing the job.
It is my perception that by introducing the Law Enforcement Bill of Rights they ensured that no ex-parte action would taken against officers and that they would have a fair hearing either before a judge or a impartial mediator.
The policies reflected in the LEO BoR and also the polices described at the International Chiefs of Police site indicate officers due get hearings first-as a function of being Unionized.
If you would be so kind as to whether officers in your area have these mediating tools at their disposal that would be most interesting.
I had a PPO put upon me with no hearing or warning,soon a letter came in the mail from the State boys that said my firearm rights were gone.
I had to get a lawyer and request a hearing to get my rights *reinstored*
a process I believe officers (and others) have gotten around by policy.
It’s good you can see that it would be best for you not to be placed in these situations,it is a new thing under the law,which was passed under the pretense of loss of tourism monies and hence subject to the Interstate Commerce act.
I do apologize for the polarizing speech,it was just too easy with your “tour of duty” rhetoric.
The fact is we *should* be equal brothers under the law,this is what keeps the peace and respect for officers alive and well,it is the perception of fairness under the law that creates community support for officers and the misandrist ‘feminist’ laws-as you described them-undermine that.

I know it is not within your purview to go against policy and procedures.
It was never my intent to say “officers suck” what I meant to say is “The law is Unconstitutional,and the resultant actions of officers are thence also,and it is to both our detriments that it is so.
The fact is the “us vs them’ polarization is a very bad thing for both sides, and I would seek to reduce and/or eliminate that from the public-officer relations.That can only be achieved in the light of *just* laws,a thing neither of us have at this juncture.
Stay safe out there brother.
I have always said cognitive dissonance is the hardest thing on a young officer,the old hands get around this by being more polarized,but the Great Hope for a just society suggests a different method,one fully cognitive of both sides.
Good luck, I have no advice on how to deal with this.

There was a more recent case in Australia where 11 officers were trying to subdue someone and stop them walking into traffic and he had a bad reaction to being tasered and died. One dumbass I work with thought it was unreasonable until I noted, _11_ police officers were having difficulty restraining him.

Well if the police say it, it must be true. Or not. Funny thing about your stories, they appear quite selective. In the state I live in, a few cops decided they absolutely had to arrest a retard walking down the street screaming “I love Jesus”. No doubt they used typical “cop talk” when attempting to “reason” with the retard. Since it is difficult enough for a normal human being to understand a cop rambling in “cop talk” mode, this is not very surprising. So they tasered him and he died. No cop was punished as the coroner ruled that he “just dropped over dead” and not from the taser.

Every human being has a right to stand your ground(phrase used on purpose).

A moral and natural right, yes. A legal right, not so much if you’re the wrong kind of person. The former will be small comfort if you find yourself before a judge, unless you want to be a martyr for the cause.

My mother has always been a controlling BPD type of person,and my father her unthinking slave.
They’ve driven off my brother into hiding decades ago and have conversations with the local police on how to trump up a charge to incarcerate him “for his own good.”

I had been in no contact mode for over 7 years and finally came back for more due to my fathers failing health.
After several violations of boundaries I had set up I went no contact again for several weeks.
My mother threatened to file false DV charges to ‘bring me back into line.’

She’s worried about keeping the home after father passes and keeps suggestion I sell my home to finance her home,promising it to me via inheritance.
Of course I cannot trust her nor live with given the situation.
She’s going to lose the home, I’, going to lose the inheritance,all due to her internalization of police power.

My greatest fear is that no contact will not protect me from false accusation and prosecution,as no evidence is needed these days.
I may very well have to sell my retirement home and go into hiding until she dies.
Thanks VAWA!

I have also seen women who were very skilled fighters. Hell, I’ve had my ass handed to me (in a non injurious fashion) by a well-trained female black belt.

However, the natural order of bigger = better still dominates over skill, basically at all times. The reason is because all fights if they last any longer than 30 seconds go to the ground, and in fact the smart fighter if he knows he’s sufficiently bigger will always take his opponent to the ground. When you’re on the ground, THE HEAVIER PERSON WINS, PERIOD. This is why cops don’t try to punch it out with their perps, they tackle them. The reason the heavier person wins is because the lighter person is essentially stuck between one enemy (the ground) and someone who weighs more than they can likely lift. Hell, even an equally weighted person can help subdue another person by simply going complete limp on top of them. Human bodies are heavy, and when you’re fighting on the ground the heavier person has all of the advantages. If this were not so, then legitimate wrestling leagues would not have weight classes.

Women are weaker, smaller, and they weigh less. In any fight between woman and man that goes to the ground, the woman will generally always lose.

@ar10308
The way the findings were described was that a man would keep going at a higher level of pain than a woman. Now whether she perceived that pain as higher than he perceived it or whether the man simply has a greater ability to continue to do other things while in pain is something I am not clear about.

There was a story that went by on the local news a few months back, though I can’t seem to locate it now, involving an assistant pastor (Lutheran?) being arrested for DV, even though the wife freely admitted starting it all. She was later trying to stop the legal machinery, saying she was going to defend hubbie in court. Minor, almost accidental injuries required a call to paramedics, and once the cause was brought to light they’re obligated to push the button to start the machine and grind the guy up. Not even the alleged victim of the crime can turn it off after that, because it’s like a crime of misogyny against all wimminz.

Aaron brought up the constructivist fallacy of 5,000 years of women’s historic oppression (October 31, 2012 at 2:51 pm). Among other things it leaves those who fall for it with collectivist notions of group guilt — the equivalent of original sin but for men only, who are thus on a sort of extended probation for good behavior until their true inferior nature (inevitably) surfaces.

“If a group of people really needs 5,000 years to figure-out that they’re oppressed, then what better proof is there that they’re not as intelligent as those who’ve so cleverly managed to oppress them for so long?
I mean oppressed for 10 years? Maybe. 50 years? Maybe. 5,000 years? Wow. What a pathetic track record. Women bought the same bill of goods for generation after generation? What a bunch of dumbasses they must be. If you ask me, that’s a fine argument for female inferiority.”
– H_H

Also, for people actually having to deal with cops, they are very sensitive, delicate creatures, but also proud and mean. So you have to be extra-super duper nice, but only in the right way, because it has to be right because proud, sensitive, masculine girls like them “don’t like suck ups”. They know they have a lot of power and the right to do whatever the hell they want and it’s important to keep that in consideration.

The point is that it is being called abuse if the man does it, and perfectly acceptable if the woman does it.

Yeah, I missed that link. I still think that, man, or woman, the standards for all sorts of crimes have been blown completely out of proportion. In a nearby municipality, after your first offense, graphiti is a felony. WTF? This is doubly so with “violence” laws. Assault used to mean you hit someone… then you just touched him on the shoulder… now yelling at someone is assault? It’s inane. At this point, my response to “he assaulted her” is “… so?”.

I know so many guys my age (28) who are completely disillusioned with the behavior of women and they aren’t even divorced.

Not the exact age, but close enough. *raises hand*

Having a femi-bitch for a teacher, repeatedly, will do that to a lot of folks that choose logic over emotion, argue back, and see that the ideas of the “teacher” are intellectually empty. It’s the same reason why I have never fully bought the left/right political spectrum, or National Socialism and Fascism being at the opposite end from other kinds of Socialism, or the idea that the edges “wrap around” to form a wing. The teacher to exposed me to this idea was one I was already skeptical of, due to all of her feminist drivel.

I’m going to refrain from ranting about the day I’ve had dealing with women-in-charge, between my kids’ school and my building ‘management’, but suffice to say I don’t blame any of you younger guys for feeling the way you do. Think yourselves lucky to have seen it for what it is, although that’s probably not a whole lot of consolation.

Sure, there are exceptions among women, but those are few and far between. Men need to shun us until we learn to behave ourselves and stick to what we’re good at.

Maybe so, but I’m not seeing any other large scale remedy at this stage of the game. We’re buggered with all these BPD women in power positions. If you don’t allow your emotions to govern your behaviour in a woman’s world, you have no feelings and are guilty of something – probably something horrible. And it’s not just them, it’s the ‘innocent’ ones who simply go to bat for Team Woman no matter how irrationally a woman behaves, thereby propping up the whole mess.

Then if you do show any frustration or righteous anger or indignation, you are disturbed and scary and need ‘help’. Yet somehow, all the hysterics of these disturbed or out of control women are kowtowed to. It makes no sense and never will, because it is not based on rationality or reason.

Then if you do show any frustration or righteous anger or indignation, you are disturbed and scary and need ‘help’

This I’ve experienced and seen. Men who are in a state of outward frustration or stress are considered immature, as if maturity is a Terminator-like stoicism. Many are not immature, but merely unable to quantify what they have experienced as men manipulated and poisoned by a life of feminine dominance. It is worse when these men know there is something wrong and it is other men, who have become hardened robots, who purposely hold them down and tell them “grow up.”

Yes, did you read about Darrell Williams? I guess being a big black guy made his ‘outburst’ in court after being convicted of rape (false accusations – no evidence, long after the fact charges IIRC) at the age of about 22 all the more ‘scary’.

His life is ruined and he’s supposed to remain calm? The look of anguish on his face said all there was to say, and the supposed empathic sex (the judge was a woman I believe) just pretends to be scared. Scared of what, a man having feelings?

I’d like to point out that traditionally, shunning was conditional. A person that displayed unacceptable behaviors was shunned, either for a period of time as a punishment, or until they recanted, at which point they were welcomed back. This later form serves the purpose of both punishing (the shunning), and rewarding (the happy welcoming back).

I recently read “The Principles of Communication” over at Manhood Academy (manhood101.com). According to that book, removing someone from your life as a firm punishment, and only accepting them back once they are truly attempting to meet your expectations (apologize, without partially blaming you), is an exercise of authority, and stability, which women find innately attractive.

Part of the vast problem, is that by the time a woman is willing to call the cops on her man, her contempt for him has grown to the point that trying to suddenly exercise his authority, uncharacteristically, doesn’t work. He needs to be routinely firm, and authoritative in a way that is loving and protective… similar to how SunShineMary’s husband gently holds her, and corrects her, lovingly, when she gets “flouncy”.

The problem is that a man can’t base his world on the subjective standard of what makes his wife feel loved and protected… or even worse, what she says, at any given moment, will make her feel loved and protected. He has to do those things that are actually good for her, and protective of them both, and their relationship.

That’s a pretty hard standard to live up to, even without all of the misandrist laws in our society. It’s very accurate to say that the bible gives greater responsibility to husbands than to wives. Even without the cultural demands, I can very well understand the temptation not to put in the exhaustive emotional labor that is demanded by this standard, and to pretend incompetence, just to get out of as much work as possible.

Due to my lack of a male role-model growing up, and my inability to find a bible study group in the area that is taught by men that know how to be men, and will teach me to be a [b]man[/b], before ever bringing wives / children into things, I am not sure that I will ever be the kind of man I’d want to be before being married. I’m also not sure that there is a single woman in the country that I’d be willing to wed, given the current legal climate, and culture.

The sad thing is, that if I had a strong father figure present, knew how to be a better man, the laws were better, and I found a potential wife with the potential upbringing… you can bet your left leg that I’d bust my butt to make sure that the needs of my wife and kids were provided for, including their spiritual ones. As it is, I’m trying to find a purpose to devote myself to, and I know that my drive has not been captured to it’s potential. I’m trying to find a way to capture it myself, for the good of mankind… but without the need to do so, it’s more difficult.

I love my dear mother, but given what I saw her and my father go through, I don’t think I’d even marry a woman that was exactly like she was when they wed. There’s no point, there’s no benefit, and there is much harm to be done.

BJJ is the great equalizer though when you’re on the ground. Helio Gracie the founder basically created BJJ from Japanese Judo because he was a very tiny frail guy that had to adapt to taking on much bigger opponents on the ground. A skilled BJJ guy will dominate the other person sans weapons from their guard on their back. Being wrapped in a triangle choke isn’t fun.

Those deviations are like saying “my dad can beat up your dad”….definitely as mature. WHO CARES? Im wondering if we have a visitor whose other name is/was WWC at Christian Forums.

I think this is a virtual version of what men tend to do in stressful situations, and I see it as healthy. The topic is about men being cornered and attacked without the right to defend themselves. As a result, it brings up some very strong feelings. Men tend to channel these things into appropriate directions, and martial arts are a very appropriate way to channel this.

If Dalrock’s between-the-lines reading is correct, then I agree, but I (like Cane and others) also wonder if it’s an overreaction. The OP clearly states that they had both had a few drinks. I don’t think either of them had particularly thought through their actions here.

If she was deliberately preventing his exit, then the reasons for that need further exploration (e.g. lack of respect). Furthermore, if she did it with the conscious knowledge of the legal danger this placed him in if he were to try to leave, then it is indeed much more serious. If none of it was intentional, then assumedly she would have moved out of the way when asked firmly (or at least developed a conscious intention to not do so).

An important thing to note also is that IF she had been trying to use DV threatpoint as a method of coercion, it failed because he obviously didn’t appreciate the legal quagmire he walked into.

As for his actions, I cannot help but think there are two possibilities. Either he acted rashly and suddenly in his exit, or there was a gradual escalation not explained in the OP. The OP suggests that he hadn’t done anything similar previously, so I don’t think it’s rashness (unless it was just alcohol and/or significant unresolved stressors; which should then be her focus if she wanted to address this). That leaves the possibility that there was escalation that was glossed over by the OP.

The kind of escalation I am picturing is something like this. “I’m not going to talk about this right now. I am leaving the room.” “No, I won’t let you leave the room until you apologise to me!” “I said I’m leaving the room. Please move out of the way.” “MAKE ME!” *he steps towards door* *she escalates dominant body language*

Now, at this point, if it had been me, I would have slowly reached around her and gripped the door, then proceeded to slowly open it, ignoring threats and being prepared to take a few scratches or punches (not because I HAVE TO take them, but because physical retaliation is unlikely to be in the best interests of my children or wife). Unless my wife was much stronger than me, or was unstable enough to lash out and cause me severe or lasting injury, I doubt I would need to hold her wrists or push her away from the door. Even in the case that I had to restrain her wrists, I would use force only proportional to the force of her struggle, and the only way she would bruise from this is if she persisted in trying to hit me.

In any case, I hope the two of them can apologise to each other (she for putting him in a “head I win, tails you lose” situation; he for grabbing her wrists and pushing her out of the way if he used more force than necessary or had not clearly warned her of this consequence of remaining in the way.)

As for the option of making another door, I’m not sure that’s the best way. Nothing like a hugely unpredicted display of strength to give a woman a good “you’re scary” card to play in arguments or divorce court.

[PS @Dalrock or other Christians suggesting divorce in this kind of circumstance: I’m interested to hear about how you would justify this Biblically.]

You should probably get a new analogy — lionesses are usually actually the head of the pride, with the males only being kept around to service their biological clocks. I don’t think it’s because the females are necessarily stronger, but maybe just more dominant.

Of course, this is an exception in the animal kingdom, so I’m sure you can pick nearly any other animal to use as an analogy.

Another interesting animal when it comes to sexual dimorphism is the Australian emu — unlike most species, the female emu presents features to attract the male, lays eggs and then pisses off and lets the male sit on the eggs and raise the hatchlings as a single father. I only found this out recently — until then I had always assumed that it was the females who got really angry when you got near their nests.

Because the law in this area is enforced in a very one-sided way, based on the idea that the smaller/weaker needs protection more than the other one does, in my opinion, it is *always* the best course in a situation like this to avoid touching the woman in question at all, and also avoid other acts of “violence” (raising your voice, punching the air, slamming a pillow on the bed, etc.), because any and all of this can land you very easily in jail just on the basis of the woman in question feeling “threatened”. Just how it is. The law isn’t going to be enforced differently anytime soon in any general way (exceptions aside), so the better course is to act in a way that protects yourself from going to jail.

Yes, it’s unfair. Yes, women have a huge bazooka-like power when it comes to these laws, but that isn’t going to change anytime soon, if ever. Best to learn what the rules are, and act accordingly to preserve your own hide.

Just kicking an idea around in response to your request for how this might be justified biblically to divorce a wife who levels DV charges against you falsely?

I think it might reasonably be said to fall under the category of abandonment. The wife is seeking to have her husband estranged from her by the force of law and steal his stuff in the process. If anything this is actually worse than merely abandoning the marriage because she is using violence (in the form of the states actions against him) to force him out of the picture.

Ironically a false DV charge is actually a perfect example of domestic violence with the violence being out sourced.

and also avoid other acts of “violence” (raising your voice, punching the air, slamming a pillow on the bed, etc.), because any and all of this can land you very easily in jail just on the basis of the woman in question feeling “threatened”

Of course, if you do avoid those things, she can just make it up. Women make enough other crap up, so why not that?

Brendan: When she can just make up anything she wants that doesn’t involve leaving bruises, how does your not actually doing those things reduce your risks? It’s still he-said she-said. The investigators are still going to believe who they want to believe.

I can think of a few arguments someone might use.
Are you counting on witnesses?
Expecting her to recant?
Thinking she’s less likely to make it up than claim a masculine action “scared” her?
Am I missing any?

Probably if you do nothing, there is at least a chance of not being reported or of it being more difficult for her to lie about, whereas if you do something, it is something that can be blown out of proportion. It’s easier for people to believe an exaggeration than an outright lie and then be able to make it stick.

Of course, anything you do could be construed in any way your accuser wants to construe it. Put a cup down a little too hard? You were throwing crockery around and acting violently!

Women never commit domestic violence. Only all husbands and fathers are dangerous, a risk and abusers. For that matter, lurking beneath the skin of every man is a volcano of violence waiting to erupt to destroy helpless women and children.

@CL,
Ah. So saying “I never even touched a cup”, and there not being in a room means people are less likely to believe that you threw a cup around, rather than your saying that you just set the cup on the table, where they find it. Okay, I suppose I can see that.

@ Josh – I think you’ve got the idea, but here’s a more concrete example.

“How does the Kathleen Willey story itself differ from the Anita Hill story? First of all, Kathleen Willey told her story the way most people tell about something that left an indelible impression on them — with incidental details that have no real bearing on the issue, but which are burned into their memories because they were part of an experience that they are not likely to forget.

For example, Mrs. Willey remembered the cup of coffee that Clinton had gotten and the fact that Lloyd Bentsen was waiting outside the oval office when she emerged. If you are lying, it makes no sense to talk about some coffee that the president got because it could turn out that Bill Clinton doesn’t drink coffee and had none in the pantry.” – Thomas Sowell, from http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell031998.html

This gives a person a solid hook to hang a false statement on. From there, it’s much easier to exaggerate accidentally knocking over a cup during an argument to “he was waving his hands around wildly, spilling the coffee all over!”

@ infowarrior1: from your news item” When asked by detectives what he meant, he said: ”She say she want to finish. I say, you want to finish? I finish.” “
That speech seems .. familiar. Sounds like Ug is still alive after all this time. And living in Oz.

Moderation note: This is an emotional topic, so please use restraint. Any comments which advocate violence against men or women will be removed and the commenter banned

Son obeys Father, men obey Son, women obey men, children obey women

this is God’s established order, and when human beings change it (e.g., feminism, making men legally and culturally obedient to women) disaster always results

inherent at each level of authority is the right to corporal intervention or punishment

if a man oversteps his responsibility to correct a woman, then he is called to account by his master (christ) — NOT by the State, NOT by the churches, NOT by the collective fiat of The People, or The Voters, or the Mass of Public Opinion, or even by Dalrock! lol

in the early seventies, feminism and the rising matriarchal State understood that the key weapon for victory hinged on the DV issue . . . during those years the phrase “There is NO Excuse for Domestic Violence” was everywhere, and w/in a couple decades, that meme was mass-accepted, and a vast LE, government, media, and “shelter” movement responded to the “problem”

once God’s order was broken, and the male no longer had authority to correct (physically if necessary) a woman (or child) who misbehaved, it was all over . . . the DV wedge then opened up western cultures to all the other “improvements” of our now-feminist nations

so, Dalrock’s Moderation Note is squarely in the mainstream of modern feminist law, practice, and theory (including threatened punishments for perpetrators — even Thought Perpetrators! lol)

but it is not in obedience to God’s order and hierarchy for human relations, as once authority over women is removed from men, then most females will do whatever they damn well please, and eventually they will use collective power to instead coerce the OPPOSITE of God’s order — placing all males under the authority of females, as we now have throughout the west

if you speak up for God’s order, the people and organizations of this planet want to “remove” you and/or have you “banned” . . . including “men’s rights” bloggers who are CHRISTIANS!

LOL!

individuals can be removed or banned, but not the truth, even when unpopular or uncomfortable

A few years ago, I took a course taught by the key gender studies prof at my university. When we discussed domestic violence, she was incredulous that there even had been studies done that suggested that there was a 40/60 split in male to female victims of domestic violence. It wasn’t that she was insisting that it couldn’t be. She was complete unaware that this had even been suggested, despite the fact that have been dozens of studies done that said just that. I know that it had been years since she completed her PhD, but it was very telling to me that she wasn’t in anyway up-to-date with research developments in her field. The class material was like a living time capsule from the 1970’s.

Ray
We are in a shooting gender war against males. The manospere is firing back,Dalrock is firing back. His policy of moderation needs to be seen as a combatant taking cover behind a concrete wall or in a depression. (not to be confused with cowering from the enemy). I voluntarily censored myself on his blog because I understand how important it is for a man like Dalrock to be free to speak the truth for all to see and read. It is also a good tool for men to communicate ideas.
This is a good topic and truely shines the light on the sword of damocles. Even a woman as active as sunshinemarry is was shocked at what the sword looked liked in practice. This article is where murder suicides come from that is why it is so terrifying a subject and will make any christian man a churchian.
Dalrock I have been having a lot of fun with yahoo answers. good place to spread the word.

While there is freedom of speech, there is that sliver of hope things can turned around. Walking humbly before God, practice Game before women, expose the feminist corrosion of the truth, and stand your ground. Men can win the day in this.

A few years ago, I took a course taught by the key gender studies prof at my university. When we discussed domestic violence, she was incredulous that there even had been studies done that suggested that there was a 40/60 split in male to female victims of domestic violence.

@22to28
Odds are that even after you told her she’ll still find an excuse for ignoring the information. There’s a reason ignorant bigots stay that way.

As for violence against women … I’m a reasonably big guy, in great shape, and a trained former fighter, but I’m pretty fricken terrified of angry or abusive women. All it takes is one phone call and you’re facing thousands of dollars of legal trouble if not jail time. Whether or not you’re innocent your character will be assassinated. And you’ll never get back the money spent on legal fees. There’s no way to win … you can only hope to decrease your losses.

I’ve been lucky in that I was able to get away when I faced that situation. But perhaps the battles you run away from come back to find you. Because I’ve lived to see my son face the same thing. I’m glad he knows better than to retaliate against a girl because lord knows I couldn’t protect him from the law’s wrath if he thinks he has a right to defend himself and one day when he’s bigger actually does so.

Still it absolutely breaks my heart to see boys on the playground powerless against being victimized by girls who will launch an unprovoked attack just because a boy refuses to give in and do what they say. I’ve seen them kick or punch a boy as hard as they can and then as soon as he hits them back they start crying and he gets in trouble. Unbelievably the girls absolutely refuse to believe they had it coming. I don’t know if it’s an unfairness gene girls have always had or whether feminism brought a sense of entitlement that recently caused this change. I don’t remember it being that way. When I was young girls wouldn’t fight with boys because they feared getting hurt. Now that there are always adults around boys don’t settle things on their own the way they used to.

“The Duke Lacrosse Team was mistreated. But take a step back, how would your parents have reacted if they found out you were at a drunken school party with strippers? My parents would have brought me home from school the next day and that would have been the end of them paying my college tuition. The missing part to the Duke story is what the parents of the “other” Lacrosse Team members did with their sons. How many sons were punished for being at a drunken party with strippers? How many parents took away credit cards? How many parents made their sons stay home for a semester so they could think about their behavior? How many parents simply said boys will be boys. There is the problem. Parents allow their sons (and daughters) to go away to college and misbehave badly. Good Christian boys would never run afoul of the so-called “feminist agenda” because good Christian boys would treat all women with respect and dignity.”

I used to think so in my blue pill days. The lions just laze all day while the lionesses do all the heavy lifting (poor females). But recent big cat research has shown that the males serve a very important function, which is protection of the pride (such as from said hyenas and from other nomad lions trying to take over the pride and kill off the cubs). The males also help take down dangerous prey that the females by themselves can’t tackle (like cape buffalo, giraffe and elephant). Of course, this sort of throws grit into the gears of one of feminism’s favorite male shaming memes. Sorry to burst your bubble.

>>You are taking situations where men are severely restricted from acting and attempting to drag it over as a general principle regarding women’s physical ability. It’s childish nonsense.

Sharrukin, all the nonsense comes from you. You are determined to ignore the reality that a berserk woman is actually a match for a much bigger man, a much stronger man, IF SHE IS BERSERK. And, if she has any sort of weapon, she can easily kill him. No matter how smart-alecky you may be, that is historical and scientific fact. Your stubborn insistence is exactly why men are mistreated when they are victims of DV by their wives.

>>Anonymous age 70
Did the murdering wife in your story get a long sentence? From what I understand women generally get light sentences for all crimes. I didn’t understand something about the story of the Coach who was stabbed. The Coach was married to the woman who killed him right? And their mutual daughter testified to put the mom in jail?

I do not remember her sentence, but I think she did do some serious jail time, not just a few months. Yes, they were married, and, yes, their daughter testified against her own mother.

>>Because child-birth pretty much incapacitates a woman and before modern medicine, it killed many of them.

Infections killed most women giving birth. Around 1800, the first paper was written stating that doctors needed to wash their hands before dealing with birthing women. It took the doctors over 100 years to accept that fact.

Also, there are always some women who cannot give vaginal birth. Until the Cesarean was developed, all those women died, and died hard.

My grandmother died during child birth in 1916. She had given birth a number of times before that.

Hello, i am starting a petition that is relevant to this subject matter. Although, without support it will just die in the requests and nothing will change. DMV carries a stigma often discarding individuals from potential jobs and often can be used in the court system for custody of children.

My petition addresses Domestic Violence 3 (harassment)

I concur with the senator that passed the law that if one life is saved from giving law enforcement to independently press charges, then the law is worth it. Although, this law is to easily abused by law enforcement threatening the alleged victim with incarceration if they do not sign papers to support the polices claims, even in events where a third party called. In addition, this law is often abused by women who want to have leverage in court for child custody.

My petition asks that DMV 3 be changed to just harassment after the probationary period.

Here you had a sitting president that had everything going against him in voter sentiment, ambivalent economic data, if not bad data, a general lack of confidence of his ability to be a significant leader, and still he could not be beaten by his opponent.

This has been the on going theme of my comments. Women are winning. Women are going to win and impose the changes on society that they wish and there is nothing you can do to stop it.

The reason Obama won this election and why the Republicans were not able to gain any ground in the legislature was women. Pure and Simply. This election was about women. And the men lost. If the economy had improved even by a few percent more, then the election would never have been this close. Obama appealed to women and would blown Romney away. Romney was only in the race because of his ability to run on the economy and the antipathy that conservative white voters have towards Obama. In the Senate races, Woman won every race except for Maine where an independent candidate won, and the woman came in second. The conservative came in last.

The forces arrayed against you, socially, economically, and politically are insurmountable. You can scream, whine, blog, comment, whatever, and you will not turn back the march of history. Even if the number of Red Pill aware men increases ten fold in the next few years, it still will not stop the inevitable erosion of the position of men, not only in America, but throughout the rest of the world.

Now, I am going to tell you in no uncertain terms, if you have a dick then you are on your own and the forces of the world are arrayed against you. You can expect no political support, no social support, no support in the workplace, no support in the courts, with the police. Whether you realize it or not, women are a bigger enemy to you than any Arab, any Iranian, any Chinese.

Your last chance to even slow this march was just lost. Democrats made a lot of hay about the Clint Eastwood presentation during the Republican convention where he used a chair a prop and addressed a hypothetical Barrack Obama in the chair. It was said that was essence of the Republican party, angry, old white men railing in their anger at a black Democratic president. And more and more of are those old, angry, white men going to die and not be replaced in the pipeline. In 2016 there will be even fewer of them and more and more non-white voters will move onto the voting rolls to replace those white male voters that will die over the next four years. Obama received 93% of the black vote, 69% of the hispanic vote, and 74% of the Asian vote. Romney won 59% of white voters. There will a smaller percentage of white voters in every election cycle from here on out.

But the real issue was the gender gap. Women favored Obama, 54 percent to 44 percent, while men chose Romney by an almost identical margin, 53 percent to 45 percent. Mothers were more likely to support Obama (55 percent to 45 percent), while fathers sided with Romney (55 percent to 43 percent).

“Democrats effectively made the case that issues important to women, not just issues like abortion and reproductive rights but economic issues of equal pay and access to jobs, those issues resonated with women,” said Ron Schurin, a political scientist at the University of Connecticut. “The Romney campaign seemed at times to be tone deaf on those issues. They tried to make a case, they just didn’t do it effectively.”

The key race in the election cycle, the bellweather indicator of things to come, was the race between Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren. Expect this formula to be repeated by Democrats in subsequent elections. Elizabeth Warren was an academic, a law professor from Harvard, with a specialization in Bankrupty. So expect more races where a female former professor without any political baggage or experience will run, and win, on women’s issues that are masked as issues for families, for the “middle class”. It is my opinion that Elizabeth Warren will run for president in 2016 and will become the nominee. And more and more women will move into elected office and those women will push issues favorable to women as their primary agenda masking those issues as “for children”, “for education”, “for families”.

Also, the story of the next four years will be stagnation on issues involving spending, spending cuts, unless it is a measure that effects women. Then public opinion, the media, and the army of women will coerce the Republican legislature into caving. When there are cuts or spending deals to be made, expect the deal not to cut things would have a more direct effect on women and pushed towards cuts that will affect men. If defense is cut, that effects men, fewer soliders, fewer defense contracts. Expect less stimulus spending on infrastructure, again more jobs for men. Expect this ongoing deal, tax cuts for the wealthy or business in exchange for what women want. Expect head start, health benefits, food stamp progams, education, aid to dependent children to be untouched. Expect more legislation like WAVA and IMBRA. Expect an EEO interpretation that further broadens sexual harrassment and sexual discrimination.

You all need to understand in no uncertain terms, women despise you, they think little of you. They believe you brutish and violent, bull headed, and fundamentally stupid. The see you as big children that must be controlled and disciplined in order make you useful to them. And if you are not useful to them, if you do not provide those things that they wish from you, actually, more correct to say, those things they need from you, then you will not be a part of their lives.

And they are earnest and driven in structuring society and the law in such a manner that you are no longer needed.

They are now avoiding marriage in droves, deferring pregnancy and motherhood, and using men, more and more, as forms of recreation and, less and less, as a necessary partner in the scheme of life as they are defining it. Their job and their female friends are more important to them than you are. They are celebrating and defining single motherhood as the form of child rearing preferrable to a two parent household.

And you should expect the bad behavior of women in relationships and in social situations to only get worse. There is a massive demographic shift that has been occuring since the end of the birth control. Compare the dearth of child bearing age women against the number of men from 19-55 that chase those women, men that throw deals and enticements at the feet of those women, with the rise in social media mechanisms available today that permit women to be approached and have those deals thrown at their feet, and you have recipe for more trouble ahead for men. Pity the poor boy born in 2007 when there was a birth rate of 4.32 babies born per 1000 people to the birth rate in 2011 of 1.9. There will be no girls for 50% of those boys, given that men tend to pair with younger women. If you wish to see the impact of demographic discrepancy on female behavior, study the history of Wyoming. Men literally had to pay women to have relationships and she shopped for the best offer. She would go a dance with one man and leave with another because she received the better offer.

So, I say to all of you, on this key date, this moment of national introspection that occurs every 4 years on election night when the character of our society unveils itself in the form of the ballot, we most certainly have entered into a new era of history. I call it the PostModern because I can only define it right now as what it isn’t and I am not yet able to define it for what it is. You can call it Post Industrial. You can call it the Third Wave, the first being agriculture, the second being industrial.

But you can expect to see the world, society, and the relationships between men and women begin to organize in other means, other forms, other measures, than anything that has ever come before. The Modern Era, for as long as we have any sort of social memory has been organized along the lines of the family and the marriage between men and women. Everything was based on this, from work, to taxes, to even how houses are aligned along steets, neighborhoods are built, and how maps are drawn.

You need a new paradigm, new thinking about how you filter the information that your senses provide you and what you make of it. You need to question any value, any moral, any religion, your patriotism, your chivalry, your male code of conduct, any generalization, any stereotype, any caricature, anything that is an artifact from the Modern Era. And you need to replace it something, something more PostModern. You can’t look back any fucking. Those days are gone and will never, never return.

Start with this statement right here and make it the first declaration in who you are, what you will be, and will do, what you won’t be and what you won’t do, and how you judge and think about the world

“I will be nobody’s fucking slave and nobody’s fool”.

You owe nobody nothing. You owe women nothing. You owe society nothing. All of those things, those forces, those structures wish to impose a slavery on you and need begin to reject it right now. You need redefine to yourself, “What it means to be a man.” And you need to begin to live that declaration of what it could, should, and would to be a man if you filter that determination with the first filter.

“I will be nobody’s slave and nobody’s fool”.

We will stop being men that are useful to women, useful to society and start being men that live life on their terms. You have a power that you give away. We voluntarily let chains be placed on you because we think that is what “The Good Man” does.

Re-evaluate everything.

Revolt.

You cannot change where the world and society is going. But you have the power to change your life so that you live it on your own terms. There will no “macro” solution to the angst that you are feeling. There will be no grand social movement to correct the wrongs that you experience in your dealings with women and in how society views and what it expects from men.

But you have the solution in your hands.

Game.

Not just “Game” as pick-up lines, but “Game” as a way of viewing women, as a way of viewing life, as a way of reconstructing what is right and what is wrong, as a way of reacting to the changes that are beyond your control, as a way of dealing with the structural and social changes that already have come and inevitably are coming.

Don’t worry about the world, worry about your world.

“I will be nobody’s slave and nobody’s fool.

Ever.

So when future historians look back on this PostModern time and make generalizations of this age, let them say:

“It was time when the men started being men, free men, that lived free, and no longer accepted the roles as slaves that society and women had imposed on them.”

Anonymous age 70
Did the murdering wife in your story get a long sentence? From what I understand women generally get light sentences for all crimes. I didn’t understand something about the story of the Coach who was stabbed. The Coach was married to the woman who killed him right? And their mutual daughter testified to put the mom in jail?

A good post, clearly highlighting the unfortunate issue of double standards in reporting DV. People always seem to wholeheartedly believe that women are NEVER abusers and men are ALWAYS abusers. This is unfair to both women and men alike…On one hand, men are portrayed as consistently violent/aggressive, and on the other hand, women are seen as so simple and perfect that they couldn’t possibly be capable of violence.

In this current view, men are reduced from functional adult members of society to violent aggressors. Women are reduced from functional adult members of society to children who are in need of protection. Each view is wrong and degrading, though in different ways. Neither asserts the reality that people of either sex is completely responsible for their words and actions…or SHOULD be.

One point that has confused me though: The commenters here seem to have (overwhelmingly) misread the first story…even going so far as to switch the very sexes of those involved. The story is from a MAN who blocked the door during a fight, and whose WIFE suffered from a high “flight” response. When HE didn’t allow her to leave, SHE got angry, grabbed his hands and threw HIM to the bed. I’m unsure why so many commenters are making points about a male “fight or flight” response, and getting upset about women who provoke their men into violence by creating an environment of False Imprisonment, when it was a story of a MAN creating this environment against a WOMAN.

I’m not saying I agree with the situation…after all, she was the one who put her hands on him, and needlessly threw him into the bed. Holding his hands down and moving him away from the door was all she SHOULD have done. But he does bear a little responsibility himself for blocking her way out and triggering her natural “flight or fight” response. I know I am not feminine at all (other than my natural attractiveness), and on the extremely rare occasion that I DO fight with a friend/family member, my response is ALWAYS to try and discuss things rationally. However, if tempers are too high then I will calmly remove myself from the situation and if possible go for a walk…and the conversation can continue later when everyone has their emotions in check once more. If I was physically made unable to remove myself, I have no doubt that I’d become verbally violent and would think very ill of the idiot who would I create such a hostile environment. In this way, I am very masculine…and for that I am thankful, because it means that I’d never even THIINK of hitting my loved one, unlike other less rational women are wont to do!